Hello! I use a ready-made midi controller from QRS.com and as I understand, there is a fine-tuning program for this product WinNessie, or PNOSCAN24.EXE. They were discussed above.
I see. I can't help you with that sorry. Others might but your best bet is asking the company who sold it to you, IMHO
]]>Hello! I accidentally found your description of working with fine-tuning PNO Scan and wanted to tell you about my problem. I recently made myself a hybrid instrument from an old acoustic one and it suits me completely, but there is a small problem. In some moments, double reading of the press occurs, which ultimately leads to multiple sound extraction during play. Most often, this moment appears if you play without fully releasing the key. But the disadvantage can also appear in some other cases. I understand that there is some program for fine-tuning this device. Can you tell me what this program is and where to get it. I have two instruments, and both have this annoying moment, which, of course, is very disciplined in my touch, but at the same time practically does not forgive mistakes. Thank you!
You made it but did not say how. Do you followed one of the many projects on github? Did you make your own (then where it is?)?
Without the details can be many things:
- hammers actually double-striking and the digital capturing that (solution: regulate action)
- sensors capturing noisy data which makes it look like double strike (solution: reduce noise, perhaps with better light insulation if the noise comes from external light sources -- or see next bullet point)
- software being too sensitive and registering micromovements as strikes (solution: use a filter or a different algorithm to detect strikes, which can help with noise too)
HTH
]]>xooorx wrote:But if instead you're measuring the distance moved between fixed times then having those fixed times be 1 millisecond apart is fine:
That's a valid point.Though I wouldn't entirely agree with "fine". If you assume a travel time of 0.3ms, which is a little cumbersome assumption because it comes from hammer travel time AFAIR, a basic time resolution of 1ms would mean washing out the measurement over a longer distance, implying that at high velocities the measurements cannot accurately reproduce the velocity at the precise, relevant point. Also, what makes you think that time resolution has no effect on "position" measurement? If you sum up intensity over the entire 1ms, you will end up with the aforementioned washing out/averaging out/built-in "anti-aliasing".
Gruust (and others),
There is a in depth discussion about this topic at https://pianoclack.com/forum/d/243-diy-piano-sensors and at https://pianoclack.com/forum/d/289-scan...-of-cybrid which you may want to follow.
]]>It could sell even more if they create a real piano action keyboard digital controller, by just combining the MIDI sensor bar with their woodworking skills/facilities.
That's called the N1X or NV10 (and you can guess why they went down a completely different route, and didn't use PNOscan). I think you are heavily overestimating the sales numbers for such products. Are there any numbers out there for these products and PNOscan etc.? I would guess that stuff like AvantGrand and Novus probably primarily exist to improve their reputation. In the overall market I doubt that these products have much of a relevance. But that's just an educated guess based on the price differences. Also, they have to provide home service for these products. That requires a world-wide network of trusted partners. Very expensive.
Also look at the Lachnit MK23. Who would buy that? There is no guarantee that the producer will be able to send you replacement parts in even a year down the road (small producers go out of business all the time). And I guess there is no service network at all. So, if you are Yamaha, you have a HUGE advantage here (which is why they can still afford to put that subpar action into their AGs). Though, if you'd put small sensors into a portable device, the need for a service network would be reduced. But MP11SE and VPC-1 aren't exactly portable, and the keys in the VPC-1 aren't really that great either.
]]>It could sell even more if they create a real piano action keyboard digital controller, by just combining the MIDI sensor bar with their woodworking skills/facilities.
Beto-Music wrote:I wonder why no chinese company created a competitive affordable product yet, since the circuit sensor bar it's nothing some thing so advanced or difficult.
Easy, because to be profitable you need to sell large volumes. How many of these they can expect to sell? Not enough.
I wonder why no chinese company created a competitive affordable product yet, since the circuit sensor bar it's nothing some thing so advanced or difficult.
Easy, because to be profitable you need to sell large volumes. How many of these they can expect to sell? Not enough.
]]>PNOscan manager once told me their sensor was expensive due the advanced software they had created to calibrate the response to fit the pianist taste with precision, and that would be main reason more than the circuit bar itself.
I wonder why no chinese company created a competitive affordable product yet, since the circuit sensor bar it's nothing some thing so advanced or difficult.
]]>This assumption is off by an order of magnitude or more. Key travel time, top to bottom, ranges from tens of milliseconds (fff) to hundreds of milliseconds (ppp).
That would be a quite lenient way of measuring velocity. Usually you'd want the hammer (key) speed at a very specific point in space.
I would think an (effectively) instantaneous A/D conversion of the position was taking place, every millisecond, on the millisecond.
That's quite optimistic. But if we knew the sensor IC, we could at least guess what that time window could be - assuming they are simply doing a momentary readout and nothing else. But even that would be an assumption. And why would they tell us about the low scan rate instead of the actual precision that's way better?
]]>xooorx wrote:But if instead you're measuring the distance moved between fixed times then having those fixed times be 1 millisecond apart is fine:
That's a valid point.Though I wouldn't entirely agree with "fine". If you assume a travel time of 0.3ms, which is a little cumbersome assumption because it comes from hammer travel time AFAIR[...]
This assumption is off by an order of magnitude or more. Key travel time, top to bottom, ranges from tens of milliseconds (fff) to hundreds of milliseconds (ppp). That's far longer than the free flight time of the hammer and would give 20 distinct position measurements even for the fastest key strike.
(This paper shows key travel times ranging from around 20 to 250 milliseconds, while hammer free flight time ranges from "almost zero" to 20ms)
Also, what makes you think that time resolution has no effect on "position" measurement? If you sum up intensity over the entire 1ms, you will end up with the aforementioned washing out/averaging out/built-in "anti-aliasing".
I would think an (effectively) instantaneous A/D conversion of the position was taking place, every millisecond, on the millisecond.
]]>But if instead you're measuring the distance moved between fixed times then having those fixed times be 1 millisecond apart is fine:
That's a valid point.Though I wouldn't entirely agree with "fine". If you assume a travel time of 0.3ms, which is a little cumbersome assumption because it comes from hammer travel time AFAIR, a basic time resolution of 1ms would mean washing out the measurement over a longer distance, implying that at high velocities the measurements cannot accurately reproduce the velocity at the precise, relevant point. Also, what makes you think that time resolution has no effect on "position" measurement? If you sum up intensity over the entire 1ms, you will end up with the aforementioned washing out/averaging out/built-in "anti-aliasing".
]]>1000 scans per second. That's PNOscan III. For 1900 bucks. For that money I could almost attach a separate processor to each single key. The software seems nice. But the hardware seems rather dated.
If that's 1000 scans of the actual key position per second (which it seems to be from what they say) then it should be entirely adequate.
This isn't like scanning switches or light gates where you're trying to measure the time taken to move between fixed positions. For that you would indeed want to be scanning the switches a lot faster, or using interrupts or other hardware methods to do the timing.
But if instead you're measuring the distance moved between fixed times then having those fixed times be 1 millisecond apart is fine: You're not trying to time anything by scanning any more, you've got highly accurate crystal generated milliseconds on your time axis, you just need to accurately know where the key is at each millisecond and maths will do the rest.
]]>and captures the slightest movement of each key, at 1,000x per second, per sensor, per each piano key. (https://reverb.com/item/6946214-qrs-pno...ing-to-usa)
1000 scans per second. That's PNOscan III. For 1900 bucks. For that money I could almost attach a separate processor to each single key. The software seems nice. But the hardware seems rather dated.
]]>