but the result (and the video does not show the opposite) is vvvvvvveeeeeerrrrrrrrryyyyyyy fffffffffffaaaaaarrrrrrr away from a real or a virtual guitar.

PS : his output level is too high !

PS2 : eurkk (sorry but true)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h56Qy-nZOOs

As others have said, the problem with the C and M models may be that they're composites in the first place, unlike the Yamaha.  If they don't seek to duplicate a particular example of a particular model of piano, then there are bound to be people who don't get on with aspects of that sound.

With the Yamaha, it is obvious from comments that it doesn't suit everyone and every situation, because it is true to the original and that isn't to everyone's taste.  The defects in the bass and treble extremities are those of the original instrument so the decision is clear: if you like it, buy it.  If you don't, leave it on the shelf.

What I do not accept is that the Pro version should be pitched at correcting the defects of the C and M models themselves (not that it actually has been at any point).  Turning the Rock piano into something else - that's fine.  Start with a true-to-life model and mold it to what you want.  That's a different kettle of fish from creating something more usable out of the basic C and M models which in some respects are what could be called a "Curate's Egg."

Also I do not agree that per-key velocity curves are more important and would have a greater impact than the new mic model.  I have a Yamaha KX8 controller which is certainly not high-end but is vastly more "playable" and better regulated than 95% of acoustic pianos I've come across.  In my view, a large part of the improvement in sound quality from PTQ 2 to 3 came from the mic/acoustic radiating model.

As Joshua and others have said, it is the control aspect of "Guitarteq" that would be the real issue.  It isn't the gear itself which produces the tone of masters such as Steve Vai or Clapton, it's the touch.  No keyboard-based system could ever replicate that - which is true for the vast majority of guitar players as well - and even if it could, it's not worth the lifetime of neuro-muscular adaptation required for a non-guitar playing keyboard player to achieve it.

Or, in other words, "horses for courses."

There is already Harm Visser's Physical Modeling Toolkit for NI's Reaktor.  I already know that however bad I am on guitar, emulating a guitar through a keyboard interface is nearly always going to be worse.  Jordan Rudess a possible exception

Neil

Now this sounds a bit steep, you know. To a really professional pianist there might be no alternative to a real grand piano, and if Pianoteq was one, there would be no reason why it should be less expensive...
To some other users (like myself) pianoteq is better than a real piano: You get not only a realistic, but even controllable piano sound that can be tweaked in many ways and easilly recorded for a fraction of a real piano's price. Who wants more may pay more (not that I love to pour money down the drain, but good work has to be payed for, right?).

By that logic, if I order a filet mignon for $40 and am given some chopped chuck, I should be happy and willing to cough up another $40 for what I was supposed to get in the first place. My point was simply that there are some basic, simple features that should be included in the standard version.

I suppose wider tonal and dynamic ranges for the M and C pianos could be offered as commercial add-ons, but that'd be kinda annoying if not a bit insulting to my intelligence. The rock piano was sampled at fortissimo (or fortississimo), the M and C pianos weren't. They SHOULD'VE been sampled at all ranges to begin with. The developers know this, and they should do it in the current version. Otherwise, they should state in the description of the standard version that the pianos were not modeled on the full tonal/dynamic range of the instrument, and that you'll have to wait for a Pro version or commercial add-ons to get the full expressive range of the instruments. Similar to how they tell you that the demo version has missing keys, and that you need to buy the full standard version to play all 88 keys.

The per-note velocity curve thing is a very simple thing to implement and should be standard because it's essential to adapting any keyboard--not just some or even a majority, but all keyboards--to Pianoteq for the kind of control and consistency you'd expect.

Now on the other hand, the whole multiple microphone placement thing is something that could've been offered in a "pro" version. It's far from essential, and certainly more complicated to implement than my meager suggestions.

About guitarteq (look a the title, the post talk about that... lol), i don't see why that would be a problem for Pianoteq.
The devellopper has not to rebuilt an all new software, a large party of pianoteq can be use to build a guitarteq.

But for sur, I want one thing in priority, the quality of pianoteq !

Just had to interject that!

8^)

What's this "pro" version I've heard about a few times? IMHO they shouldn't even be considering a pro version until they get the current version to where it should be. I know I must sound like a broken record already, but more realistic tonal and dynamic range in the C and M pianos and the ability to adjust the velocity response on a per note basis (either individually or graphically over any range of keys) should be STANDARD. I shouldn't have to pay another 250 or whatever it'll be for such basic features. That per-note velocity thing in particular is an extremely simple thing to implement and should be included in version 3.0.6.

Now this sounds a bit steep, you know. To a really professional pianist there might be no alternative to a real grand piano, and if Pianoteq was one, there would be no reason why it should be less expensive...
To some other users (like myself) pianoteq is better than a real piano: You get not only a realistic, but even controllable piano sound that can be tweaked in many ways and easilly recorded for a fraction of a real piano's price. Who wants more may pay more (not that I love to pour money down the drain, but good work has to be payed for, right?).

Ah, but there is this detail where (i.e. at which point relative to its length) the string is being excited. This point is fixed in pianos but should be dynamically controllable for harps and cymbaloms for every note (and for guitars BTW. That's what I meant by "halfway between").

Not to those who don't play the guitar but need a versatile instrument that sounds like one for recording purposes.....

You are much much better off attempting that with a dedicated sample library that has a collection of extraneous guitar attack techniques and styles.  In this case, the library doesn't have to be that big because the decay is no where near as long or as critical as the piano.  Now if you could combine those samples with just the sympathetic harmony tones from Pianoteq... (I forget whether there's a way to output just the sympathic notes)

Don't mean to sound arbitrary, but really those instruments are much closer to a piano and you can actually get pretty close editing the existing presets.  Frets and fingers and or picks on both ends of a very spurious string -modeling is not an efficient way to do it.  Best done with sampling or a combination of sampling & synthesis.  Aside:  one thing a guitar player (who is also into sampling) can do that a Pianoteqer with MIDI can do is to sample his instrument playing in his own style on a particular piece -individual notes or partials- then use that to perform a part that was actually too difficult on the guitar (to play clean, for instance).  You can then blend/insert that into an overdub and it can be very seamless.....

The reason why pianoteq own model, the ones not recreated entirely from a given real piano model, are not fully natural, it's a kind of mistery.   Maybe the fact they combine two or more piano models to create one it's the reason.
Anyway the model improved a lot since the first version.

I think it's been said a zillion times on this forum:
let PTQ developement focus on making the best digital piano in the world.
Aren't we all eager for the pro version ;-) ?????

-- Eran

What's this "pro" version I've heard about a few times? IMHO they shouldn't even be considering a pro version until they get the current version to where it should be. I know I must sound like a broken record already, but more realistic tonal and dynamic range in the C and M pianos and the ability to adjust the velocity response on a per note basis (either individually or graphically over any range of keys) should be STANDARD. I shouldn't have to pay another 250 or whatever it'll be for such basic features. That per-note velocity thing in particular is an extremely simple thing to implement and should be included in version 3.0.6.

-- Eran

I can understand the need to model a piano, because of its size, especially a grand piano. Most of us, I'm sure, would have difficulty fitting one into our homes.

A guitar is not the same. Its very portable, takes up no space, with minimum outlay and it works straight out of the box. So why not just buy one? Wouldn't it be easier?

Not to those who don't play the guitar but need a versatile instrument that sounds like one for recording purposes.
But I see the huge effort to control this thing, as written before: How and at which point is the string being excited? How is it dampened? And all these things a guitar player can do with the guitar's body to produce sounds and noises...
But may I bring the cymbalom and harp request to mind again? These instruments would be something halfway between a piano and a guitar...

ALL direct guitar tones are modeled, whether digitally like Line 6 products or via analog like Sansamp. You'd need all 88 keys just to get the variety of pick attack, palm muting, finger picking, hammer-ons, pull-offs, pinch harmonics, natural harmonics, etc. that you can do on any ONE note. Also, some things are way easier to play on guitar.

What they SHOULD do is drumteq!!!

A guitar is not the same. Its very portable, takes up no space, with minimum outlay and it works straight out of the box. So why not just buy one? Wouldn't it be easier? Would 'Guitarteq' It need to be programmed directly into the guitar? or would you need to add a computer/laptop to your guitar set-up?

Do pianoteq want to compete with the Variax (The V-Piano of the guitar world?)?:
http://www.jeremyshort.ca/cms/content/view/113/48/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGwDaOJL...dded#t=184
...and other technological developments.
http://www.musiciansnews.com/synthesize...g_te.shtml
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~giordano/guitar.html

It is fascinating though, that through physical modelling technology, it seems that any kind of sound could be created: Piano, Vibraphones, Bells etc...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn_uBjKTnkQ

I'm sure they could do it if they wanted to, but I hope not at the expense of developing more pianos and improvements to the existing ones.