Gilles wrote:

This way an alternative to the 84 pastes is to simply go from 24 to 107 without pasting and copying the entire list of 84 strings to do one paste in Pianoteq. Same as your tip...

Oooops, I had not tested that before, and the syntax for a group paste is slightly different than a single one, so one has to do some editing before pasting the whole group of notes, so not really so easy. Sorry.

Yeah, my tip implied you had do some editing, most of it can done via search/replace, so between the console copy and little editing voilà! Piece of cake...

Once again thanks for all your help

This way an alternative to the 84 pastes is to simply go from 24 to 107 without pasting and copying the entire list of 84 strings to do one paste in Pianoteq. Same as your tip...

Oooops, I had not tested that before, and the syntax for a group paste is slightly different than a single one, so one has to do some editing before pasting the whole group of notes, so not really so easy. Sorry.

I'm using stereo .wav files, so I assume as you said previously, pteq stereo is the best, but volume is a bit tough as it seems pteq has slight random fluctuations on a per note played basis, any recommendations that could help?

Cheers,
Tez

The actual volume of the wav file has no effect in the spectrum analysis I think, it's all relative amplitudes in the same normalized vertical scale, but just to be sure I tend to normalize both files to 0 dB before loading them.

Hey, nice renaissance for my old software...

In my case, on a Mac, I make it to note 107 without problem and clicking Next Note writes an end of file message because instead of double-clicking, I prefer to launch it in a Terminal window with the command "Java -jar PtqSpecProf.jar" in the current directory where the jar file is. This has the advantage of showing messages if an error happens, and also writes the Note Edit string for each note. This way an alternative to the 84 pastes is to simply go from 24 to 107 without pasting and copying the entire list of 84 strings to do one paste in Pianoteq. Same as your tip...

Yeah, I noticed that, when running java and not javaw... But this dummy didn't think to do a "Console" window copy! Very nice tip, that speeds things up a whole bunch, now I can try multiple presets quickly. My Akai samples I think are Steinway B, but there's little history on their exact origins, so now I've got more flexibility. I'm using stereo .wav files, so I assume as you said previously, pteq stereo is the best, but volume is a bit tough as it seems pteq has slight random fluctuations on a per note played basis, any recommendations that could help?

Cheers,
Tez

In my case, on a Mac, I make it to note 107 without problem and clicking Next Note writes an end of file message because instead of double-clicking, I prefer to launch it in a Terminal window with the command "Java -jar PtqSpecProf.jar" in the current directory where the jar file is. This has the advantage of showing messages if an error happens, and also writes the Note Edit string for each note. This way an alternative to the 84 pastes is to simply go from 24 to 107 without pasting and copying the entire list of 84 strings to do one paste in Pianoteq. Same as your tip...

So, thank you so much, this made things so much easier...

88 copy-pastes is a little daunting, but here’s a tip: if each paste is on a single line in a .txt file, this can be easily changed via search/replace to create a full keyboard spectrum file for easy loading in a preset.

Regards,
Tez

davidizquierdo82 wrote:

Hi Gilles,

No need to hear it, it's just awefull.. I've been playing it live side by side with my CA97 and it's just day and night.

Actually, the only thing near to the actual sampled sound, is your FXP and even though, when played also it side by side with the CA97, I could notice a lot of nuances that just weren't present, the color might be similar but they both still sound very different to my ears.

I know I cannot expect to fully replicate it, in fact I think it's a funny experiment but that's it, I'd rather stick to what Modartt offers and hope for a SK instrument of their creation, otherwise it's better to keep on playing the sampled one and enjoy the rest of instruments I've got within PTQ

I'm still curious by what you said regarding the " Edit All Notes option", I've click on the option an nothing happened, still the rest of notes affected whenever I pasted the spectrum (the resulting correction of your program) into each note.. but also observed that by default, if you click on one note, you'll see that sometimes other notes are also altered (not necessarily all the rest but some of them), which leads me to think that it's rather a normal thing, but still not sure and got the feeling that I'm doing it wrong..

Regards,
David

Yes there is a lot of phasing artifact in what you produced, the only reason is you probably started the analysis with a player preset with Sound Recording on (mics). Summing this to mono inside PtqSpecProf generates a lot of cancellations so you absolutely have to start with a stereo or better a mono preset. This is what I did.

I guess my offer was the best possible then, so yes you better keep playing the samples, make great music and wait for Modartt to maybe offer a Shigeru Kawai in the future. I think there are all kinds of copyright problems though that may prevent that from happening. Not all companies are as accommodating as the ones that have already approved the modelling from Modartt.

As for your questions on the Edit All Notes option, see page 66 in the manual where the interpolation is mentioned.

Regards,
Gilles

Hi Gilles, I pasted the spectrums individually by selecting each note separately, there were not two notes with same spectrum, so I guess I did it right from the beginning, what leaves less expectations yet to have it sound better in a first instance.

However, I've learnt a couple of things and it's definitely been fun. What's really amazing, is what the mate on one of your links above did with his upright, sampled it and made PTQ sound exactly the same like his upright, or at least to a big extent.

Keep well and thanks again!

Reagrds,
David

Hi Gilles,

No need to hear it, it's just awefull.. I've been playing it live side by side with my CA97 and it's just day and night.

Actually, the only thing near to the actual sampled sound, is your FXP and even though, when played also it side by side with the CA97, I could notice a lot of nuances that just weren't present, the color might be similar but they both still sound very different to my ears.

I know I cannot expect to fully replicate it, in fact I think it's a funny experiment but that's it, I'd rather stick to what Modartt offers and hope for a SK instrument of their creation, otherwise it's better to keep on playing the sampled one and enjoy the rest of instruments I've got within PTQ

I'm still curious by what you said regarding the " Edit All Notes option", I've click on the option an nothing happened, still the rest of notes affected whenever I pasted the spectrum (the resulting correction of your program) into each note.. but also observed that by default, if you click on one note, you'll see that sometimes other notes are also altered (not necessarily all the rest but some of them), which leads me to think that it's rather a normal thing, but still not sure and got the feeling that I'm doing it wrong..

Regards,
David

Yes there is a lot of phasing artifact in what you produced, the only reason is you probably started the analysis with a player preset with Sound Recording on (mics). Summing this to mono inside PtqSpecProf generates a lot of cancellations so you absolutely have to start with a stereo or better a mono preset. This is what I did.

I guess my offer was the best possible then, so yes you better keep playing the samples, make great music and wait for Modartt to maybe offer a Shigeru Kawai in the future. I think there are all kinds of copyright problems though that may prevent that from happening. Not all companies are as accommodating as the ones that have already approved the modelling from Modartt.

As for your questions on the Edit All Notes option, see page 66 in the manual where the interpolation is mentioned.

Regards,
Gilles

davidizquierdo82 wrote:

Hi again Gilles,

I managed to run your JAVA application, and I just can say wow it's really smart logic behind it.

I'm missing though the backward button (previous note), or better yet, the capability of chosing the note you need/want.

I rendered a Steingraber scale (your MIDI) and used it as source waveform, and loaded up my rendered scale CA97 as target. What I understood if I'm right, the
analysis starts from note 24 (C0) and goes all the way up until 107 (B6) as per MIDI notes in your file

My doubt, I'm copying the resulting spectrum (the corrections) and I'm pasting them on each note individually on PTQ (spectrum profile tab), and it's giving a modification of frequencies not only in the affected note, but along the rest of the notes too.. is it correct what I'm doing?

Now, what if I used the single note files (the trimmed big ones) instead of the scale? I'm pretty confident I'd be getting different results.. the question is, would it be more accurate or doesn't make sense the extra effort an time that it takes the whole process?

PS. I've been listening again both rendered WAV (CA97 vs. FXP) and they really really sound very close, specially when not much notes played. I've observed though that the FXP sound is more punchy in the middle notes, a little bit more aggresive. Also, the bass is brighter in the FXP I guess, I assume that can be corrected..

This is the FXP I came out with, no reverb no effects, used a "Steingraber Player" patch, and also this is a MIDI file rendered with it (Chopin Ballade 4):

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkG4IThf...4?e=dbd0Xu

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkG8Bpi25wsuVsVNZ

Regards,
David

Good that you can make it work. Yes there is no previous note button the process goes relentlessly forward for optimization reasons due to the older slower computer so you have to be careful in the process.

You can use what I called the File function to analyze separate notes of any size in any order as long as you take care to specify the correct MIDI number. Feel free to try that with your separate notes but I doubt the result will be much better, slightly different maybe.

By the way, at the time it was only possible to paste one note at a time in the Spectrum Profile so that directed the design. Later the possibility was added to paste many notes at a time so I could rewrite the process to be just an app without GUI that generates the whole 7 octaves at once and do one paste, but the slower note by note method allows to validate visually that the spectrum is indeed correct.

If you see that a paste seems to affect following notes it's because you forgot to first use the Edit All Notes option available in a menu when you click on the bottom rail. It preselects all notes so each change affects only the current note.

I have to go for now, I'll listen to your generated fxp later and come back to you.

Hi Gilles,

No need to hear it, it's just awefull.. I've been playing it live side by side with my CA97 and it's just day and night.

Actually, the only thing near to the actual sampled sound, is your FXP and even though, when played also it side by side with the CA97, I could notice a lot of nuances that just weren't present, the color might be similar but they both still sound very different to my ears.

I know I cannot expect to fully replicate it, in fact I think it's a funny experiment but that's it, I'd rather stick to what Modartt offers and hope for a SK instrument of their creation, otherwise it's better to keep on playing the sampled one and enjoy the rest of instruments I've got within PTQ

I'm still curious by what you said regarding the " Edit All Notes option", I've click on the option an nothing happened, still the rest of notes affected whenever I pasted the spectrum (the resulting correction of your program) into each note.. but also observed that by default, if you click on one note, you'll see that sometimes other notes are also altered (not necessarily all the rest but some of them), which leads me to think that it's rather a normal thing, but still not sure and got the feeling that I'm doing it wrong..

Regards,
David

Hi again Gilles,

I managed to run your JAVA application, and I just can say wow it's really smart logic behind it.

I'm missing though the backward button (previous note), or better yet, the capability of chosing the note you need/want.

I rendered a Steingraber scale (your MIDI) and used it as source waveform, and loaded up my rendered scale CA97 as target. What I understood if I'm right, the
analysis starts from note 24 (C0) and goes all the way up until 107 (B6) as per MIDI notes in your file

My doubt, I'm copying the resulting spectrum (the corrections) and I'm pasting them on each note individually on PTQ (spectrum profile tab), and it's giving a modification of frequencies not only in the affected note, but along the rest of the notes too.. is it correct what I'm doing?

Now, what if I used the single note files (the trimmed big ones) instead of the scale? I'm pretty confident I'd be getting different results.. the question is, would it be more accurate or doesn't make sense the extra effort an time that it takes the whole process?

PS. I've been listening again both rendered WAV (CA97 vs. FXP) and they really really sound very close, specially when not much notes played. I've observed though that the FXP sound is more punchy in the middle notes, a little bit more aggresive. Also, the bass is brighter in the FXP I guess, I assume that can be corrected..

This is the FXP I came out with, no reverb no effects, used a "Steingraber Player" patch, and also this is a MIDI file rendered with it (Chopin Ballade 4):

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkG4IThf...4?e=dbd0Xu

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkG8Bpi25wsuVsVNZ

Regards,
David

Good that you can make it work. Yes there is no previous note button the process goes relentlessly forward for optimization reasons due to the older slower computer so you have to be careful in the process.

You can use what I called the File function to analyze separate notes of any size in any order as long as you take care to specify the correct MIDI number. Feel free to try that with your separate notes but I doubt the result will be much better, slightly different maybe.

By the way, at the time it was only possible to paste one note at a time in the Spectrum Profile so that directed the design. Later the possibility was added to paste many notes at a time so I could rewrite the process to be just an app without GUI that generates the whole 7 octaves at once and do one paste, but the slower note by note method allows to validate visually that the spectrum is indeed correct.

If you see that a paste seems to affect following notes it's because you forgot to first use the Edit All Notes option available in a menu when you click on the bottom rail. It preselects all notes so each change affects only the current note.

I have to go for now, I'll listen to your generated fxp later and come back to you.

Hi Gilles,

The audio in your post sounds exquisite, I must admit. However, your FXP with my sampled sound side by side and there's in my opinion some difference.

Sorry, I'm not able to get the files embedded properly with the little player..

Sampled SKEX:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkGqYpbne9Ub7Xfms
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5mv5sjql3oi6...7.WAV?dl=0

Modelled SKEX:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkGnM_8JSQBQMUdgU
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9laoqd11ozcvt...Q.wav?dl=0

I assume this is how it should be, and that this is a first stage until I get the end result.

Both audio files have been normalised prior to uploading them, and during the process I could observ that PTQ audio has got way more peaks than the sampled one (I don't know whether it could be relevant as a reference). I've also added them here (your initial folder in onedrive):

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkGdshO-...1?e=ZdMvqR

By the way, I've also uploaded audiofiles of the 88 keys with velocities 25, 50 and 75 (separate files) in case it helps getting more information out of the audio signals.

I don't know what's now.. so I'll wait for your comments or suggestions.

PS. I'd love to find out how you used the spectrum application, all I can read it the PDF but no way to run the JAVA file (my system is up to date)

Thanks again,
David

Hi David,
Just listened to your example, wow! what great playing and wide repertoire...I find the tonal differences minimal, I doubt I could make it better, but the most obvious difference is the dynamics, I had already noticed in the past that having so many spectrum edits seems to affect the overall dynamic, so I suggest you play along with the Dynamics slider along with the Volume to get closer to the CA97 response. Maybe put the Dynamics to 50 dB and augment the Volume to compensate. Your ears are the best tool for that. It may be the other way around too: reduce the Dynamics slider and reduce the volume I'm not sure which way is best to compensate.

As I wrote before, there is only one velocity value that can be used for the Spectrum Profile edits, so having many samples of different velocity doesn't help. Also, you have to remember many many parameters go in the Pianoteq model that are out of reach to us users. It is not possible to start form say the Steingraeber and produce the Steinway D simply with edits that are accessible to us. The same goes for the CA77 samples. Their spectrum variation may be different from what Pianoteq does with the Steingraeber and we can't do anything about that.

I managed to run your JAVA application, and I just can say wow it's really smart logic behind it.

I'm missing though the backward button (previous note), or better yet, the capability of chosing the note you need/want.

I rendered a Steingraber scale (your MIDI) and used it as source waveform, and loaded up my rendered scale CA97 as target. What I understood if I'm right, the
analysis starts from note 24 (C0) and goes all the way up until 107 (B6) as per MIDI notes in your file

My doubt, I'm copying the resulting spectrum (the corrections) and I'm pasting them on each note individually on PTQ (spectrum profile tab), and it's giving a modification of frequencies not only in the affected note, but along the rest of the notes too.. is it correct what I'm doing?

Now, what if I used the single note files (the trimmed big ones) instead of the scale? I'm pretty confident I'd be getting different results.. the question is, would it be more accurate or doesn't make sense the extra effort an time that it takes the whole process?

PS. I've been listening again both rendered WAV (CA97 vs. FXP) and they really really sound very close, specially when not much notes played. I've observed though that the FXP sound is more punchy in the middle notes, a little bit more aggresive. Also, the bass is brighter in the FXP I guess, I assume that can be corrected..

This is the FXP I came out with, no reverb no effects, used a "Steingraber Player" patch, and also this is a MIDI file rendered with it (Chopin Ballade 4):

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkG4IThf...4?e=dbd0Xu

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkG8Bpi25wsuVsVNZ

Regards,
David

Hi again David.

I found the Steingraeber a really very good starting point for your samples and I didn't even have to do any correction, the fxp is straight out of PtqSpecProf. As I mentioned in the documentation, I prefer the stereo output to minimize phase cancellations that can happen when using mics. If you want to use the Sound Recording option, you might have to move mics around a bit.

Since I saw on your YouTube channel a rendition of a Chopin Waltz, I tried to find it in the Minnesota collection but to no avail, so I used a Mazurka that is similar in atmosphere in my opinion.

If you compare side by side the Steingraeber E-272 preset I started from with the resulting one, you will hear the slightly rounder tone that your samples have compared to the Steingraber. I hope you like the result and can use it as a basis, if not I can try another Pianoteq instrument.

Regards,
Gilles

https://forum.modartt.com/file/3ysgn70v
https://forum.modartt.com/download.php?id=3808

Hi Gilles,

The audio in your post sounds exquisite, I must admit. However, your FXP with my sampled sound side by side and there's in my opinion some difference.

Sorry, I'm not able to get the files embedded properly with the little player..

Sampled SKEX:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkGqYpbne9Ub7Xfms
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5mv5sjql3oi6...7.WAV?dl=0

Modelled SKEX:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkGnM_8JSQBQMUdgU
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9laoqd11ozcvt...Q.wav?dl=0

I assume this is how it should be, and that this is a first stage until I get the end result.

Both audio files have been normalised prior to uploading them, and during the process I could observ that PTQ audio has got way more peaks than the sampled one (I don't know whether it could be relevant as a reference). I've also added them here (your initial folder in onedrive):

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrkGdshO-...1?e=ZdMvqR

By the way, I've also uploaded audiofiles of the 88 keys with velocities 25, 50 and 75 (separate files) in case it helps getting more information out of the audio signals.

I don't know what's now.. so I'll wait for your comments or suggestions.

PS. I'd love to find out how you used the spectrum application, all I can read it the PDF but no way to run the JAVA file (my system is up to date)

Thanks again,
David

I found the Steingraeber a really very good starting point for your samples and I didn't even have to do any correction, the fxp is straight out of PtqSpecProf. As I mentioned in the documentation, I prefer the stereo output to minimize phase cancellations that can happen when using mics. If you want to use the Sound Recording option, you might have to move mics around a bit.

Since I saw on your YouTube channel a rendition of a Chopin Waltz, I tried to find it in the Minnesota collection but to no avail, so I used a Mazurka that is similar in atmosphere in my opinion.

If you compare side by side the Steingraeber E-272 preset I started from with the resulting one, you will hear the slightly rounder tone that your samples have compared to the Steingraber. I hope you like the result and can use it as a basis, if not I can try another Pianoteq instrument.

Regards,
Gilles

https://forum.modartt.com/file/3ysgn70v
https://forum.modartt.com/download.php?id=3808

Hi Gilles,

Thank you sir, I've checked the website and used the MIDI file there to render it as suggested, I've uploaded both MIDI and WAV files (440Hz) to a folder called Gilles_Collab:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArFgjlBHEgvrgQ9Su0W...N?e=tY0jsa

The MIDI file is basically the same I designed for this purpose (if you check the other folder), only I've made the notes last longer (1 minute) so that I could capture as much information as possible. In the resulting separate WAV files you can see how detailed (and yet not enough in the bass notes) the samples are.

Splitting the entire audio file into separate notes is not a big deal since I used an automated process, so just let me know if you need the WAV in your folder to be cut into small chunks.

IMHO the rendered notes when using your MIDI file, are too short, they are not showing the decay signal properly, which I assume is not critical for a first draft of the instrument.. but maybe crucial for the final result when designing the resonnances, not sure though.

JAVA program that you included in the website seems very cool stuff but I was not able to open it (Windows 10), not sure whether because of my system or I'm just too clumsy for that but I'd definetely love to learn about it and how it actually works. Also, as it's a spectrum analyzer, whether wouldn't there be any other options inside Ableton (my DAW) or any other to do the same job?

Another question rises in my head, wouldn't we need samples of other velocities too as signal behaviour may change according to the different velocity layers? Just a thought.

Regards,
David

Hi David,

I downloaded your wav file and listened to it briefly to check, it's fine so I will use it sometimes today (my day in Québec, not the same as Spain but also quarantined...) to create one or two fxps you could use to start your modelling and I'll put them in the FXP Corner.

The single file of short samples is an optimization I used to be able to load entirely the file in memory in the older and much much slower computer I had at the time. I did try out many lengths of separate notes and found that the result was not any better with a longer one.  Also I finally opted for a velocity of 100 as the best to get the basic overtones. You know the spectrum of a note varies continuously as the note decays and the only thing my software does is take a sort of snapshot of the average spectrum to extract the main coloration. The model in Pianoteq does the rest to generate in real time a satisfactory dynamic spectrum according to velocity. The Spectrum Profile facility of Pianoteq Pro gives only one entry for each note's harmonics so a choice has to be made. Using a lower velocity file would give a different result but not significantly so.

Also I have to make use of the very useful rescale function to fine-tune the result. Since your signature says you have all Pianoteq instruments (and so do I) I will try one or two because the closer the source and destination instruments are the better the result.

I'll get back to you soon.

EDIT: In the meantime you might be interested in the fine work Bruno (user bm) did to emulate his Schimmel upright in Pianoteq: https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php...75#p961575