...As reference, I've been a Pianoteq user since I got v2.1 when it was firstly released, while presumably PaptainClanet began around his forum registration date..
(I started using pianoteq with the v3 demo, btw - stopped using it for a while then recently purchased v6)
]]>I've just reposted the two (2) files (above) to make these convenient in an A/B comparison with PaptainClanet's Steinway B Prelude (oomph) preset (also above).
With oomph as the object target of pianos at this topic, and while I was making a preset to demonstrate it, I found the PIANOTEQ Limiter more than just remotely adequate. It seems in its present version —maybe its fourth (4th) GUI look— it has recently been suited specifically to the current PIANOTEQ instrument tones. In which it functions as an inconspicuous brick wall limiter (that is) without a lot of over saturation and distortion given and creating a distinct impression in instrument volume peaks. A result of that is just a naturally sounding loud ffff instrument crescendo and volume peaks without any unwelcomed red peak signal showing up on an interface.
I was myself surprised to see the latest entry method also the look of the Limiter. (I was pleasantly surprised.) And, I was surprised to find it more useful to me than it had previously been in other (earlier) versions of the software.
Now I'm curious to get an idea from the opinions of others, if they would like to rate the very latest presets that include oomph, both recently posted by PaptainClanet and me. This idea might help software end users to gage how much really software experience can matter in the creation of a preset and whether or not one planned around a specific MIDI file performance does make a difference.
As reference, I've been a Pianoteq user since I got v2.1 when it was firstly released, while presumably PaptainClanet began around his forum registration date.
If you're going to brave the A/B comparison, please submit a rating on each of the presets.
Granted, my piano preset built around a specific MIDI file might have an unfair advantage. So, you may want additionally to experiment on one of your own. (I'm suggesting audition and play as loud a level as tolerably possible at your audio interface while watching to see if any software red peak signal ever lights.)
Careful, don't blow the loudspeakers!
Personally, I find it interesting two presets given the same MIDI file produce vastly different sounding results. It is as though they are playing different files altogether.
Please, comment if you like!
]]>I know it is difficult to talk about sound, that words often fail to convey a precise description of what we hear. Elvis Costello famously said that "talking about music is like dancing about architecture".
But, "oomph", I don't know, man: it takes the cake. It's like people are trying to draw a map for an undefined destination...
Appreciated is any of your feedback. Right now I anxiously await, francine, because only I’m expecting to hear your oneupmanship.
And, let me tell you, always I’m looking forward to any constructive criticism. Please, don’t leave me hanging.
About both presets and their respective clickable audio files, the format of the audio has a relatively low bit rate. Which might account for the audio depth or a lack thereof.
Have you v.6.7.1 in at least a standard software copy? If you do, that might allow the maximum depth possible.
Thanks, Amen! I do like the 2nd one you added better than the 1st, though both sound nice to me. Still not quite where I want to be as a final result, but it really does sound nice. I will download the fxp when I get time, and check out the adjustments you made. Thanks for trying to help!
]]>And, let me tell you, always I’m looking forward to any constructive criticism. Please, don’t leave me hanging.
About both presets and their respective clickable audio files, the format of the audio has a relatively low bit rate. Which might account for the audio depth or a lack thereof.
Have you v.6.7.1 in at least a standard software copy? If you do, that might allow the maximum depth possible.
]]>Well, I’ve gone ahead and created a preset as a starting point.
these both sound rather tinny to me and quite lacking in either character or depth... but maybe you were trying to create a sort of electric piano sound?
either way, it would seem the ooomph still eludes you, young padawan...
Let me know if you can discern any oomph.
Maybe one day PIANOTEQ will allow grand piano placement either right up against or at least at a wall. That might be best if it’s curved (from what I gather). Also a freehand bezier curve tool could permit that and a flat surface along with a lot of individual choices even of course user-to-user variations.
Edit: upload.
Have just now uploaded a second (2nd) version. Let me know if you can discern any extra oomph with this one:
https://forum.modartt.com/download.php?id=3871
https://forum.modartt.com/file/1rv9licw
Maybe you’ll find it is useful whenever you make another A\B comparison.
The MIDI file from it is available as a download:
Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2.mid
Sorry, just no way I found to copy any noise from a video and reproduce it inside a preset. (Smile.)
]]>aWc wrote:With good speakers, the sound does not appear "just coming from two points where the speakers are", but can create a two and even three dimensional sound space.
Agreed. My point is that the "pure" piano sound from Pianoteq won't do this. You need the reverb and/or some work with the other settings.
I find Ooooomph to be quite speaker-dependent. For example, when I went to larger monitor speakers, my Oooomph improved. I added an 8" subwoofer under my keyboard, and things got much more solid, especially when I turned the threshold down to 40-50 Hz, so it's really trying not to produce much audible sound, which would muddy the bass (and it's best if it's just loud enough to 'feel' it, without hearing it). Also, reverb can be helpful or harmful, depending upon your goals, and depending upon your local environment. A short reverb, like a "case reverb", can add to the psychological Oooomph.
I'm using high quality over-ear headphones for now. By oomph, I'm not referring just to bass response, as that is easily added with an EQ. Its the quality of the tone, the richness and thickness of sound that I find hard to achieve without adding unwanted color/ringing to the sound. I did some more tweaking last night and am improving the preset slowly, though.
]]>PaptainClanet wrote:My biggest gripe with Pianoteq is that its SO hard to get a real thick oomph to the sound.
Take this video...
Interesting, my problem with Pianoteq is the opposite, I spend time figuring out how to thin it out and get a bit more clarity without spoiling it.
I'm interested that your video links are people playing at home, not in a concert hall. Can you give us more detail on what you're trying to achieve? Do you want a sound that records well, or a sound that feels satisfying when you're playing live (not the same thing!) Exactly which instruments and presets have you tried? Did any of them come close? Which ones were the worst?
PaptainClanet wrote:Can someone explain more of what Direct Sound Duration does, exactly? I have adjusted it to min and max values, and hear no difference really.
Seconded. I also can't tell the difference.
I'm interested in both really. I want it to primarily sound pleasing and powerful while I am playing it, but also record well. Sort of like a good built in piano sound on a modern DP. Ive messed considerably with the Steinway B, Bechstein DG, and the Petrof. I can get sort of halfway there with all of them, each has different characteristics I like. I tend to like tweaking the close mic, under lid, and player presets most.
I've found that increasing the direct sound duration tends to decrease the duration of the note sustain. Go figure.
Reverb or something similar is fairly essential. With a real piano, the sound isn't just coming from two points (where the speakers are), it's coming off a big soundboard, so that you hear it from many directions at once. Reverb is the best chance of imitating this. There's a gazillion options with the settings, so it might take a while to find something that you like. To add body without making it muddy, try turning up the early reflections compared to the tail? If you don't like reverb, you can also get a bit more body from delay, compression, soundboard impedance or damping duration.
Another suggestion for taking the edge of harsh sounds is just to close (or half-close) the piano lid. On my acoustic piano in my small music room at home, lid fully open is painful! Perhaps Pianoteq is faithfully modelling this :-)
Reverb can definitely help the ambience and overall tone, but not the character of the sound. Many times when I close the lid in pianoteq the sound just becomes less pleasing overall. It looses power and starts to feel weak. I usually opt for an EQ adjustment to tame the harshness instead.
]]>With good speakers, the sound does not appear "just coming from two points where the speakers are", but can create a two and even three dimensional sound space.
Agreed. My point is that the "pure" piano sound from Pianoteq won't do this. You need the reverb and/or some work with the other settings.
]]>hanysz wrote:
With a real piano, the sound isn't just coming from two points (where the speakers are), it's coming off a big soundboard, so that you hear it from many directions at once.
I only partially agree with this. With good speakers, the sound does not appear "just coming from two points where the speakers are", but can create a two and even three dimensional sound space. Of course, speakers don't behave like a soundboard, but they can definitely produce sounds that appear to come from multiple directions and depths. When I listen to a high quality broadcast like the Digital Concert Hall from the Berlin Philarmonie on my large Mordaunt Short stereo speakers, I close my eyes and I really have the illusion of being in a concert hall! A lot can be done with Pianoteq editing and a clever speaker set up.
]]>