Something that I've tried to look up with any success--if there is a general agreement about differences in unison tuning in different ranges of the keyboard. I'm sure that people have different preferences about the amount of detuning, but I wonder if, say, the midrange is usually detuned a bit more than the high treble, etc. Anyone read anything on this subject?

I don't think it's the unison detuning per se. And it's not just too bright - it just sounds *wrong* to me. (mainly for forte playing in the middle registers). Bright, but not in a pleasant way - a harsh way.

I was very surprised that narrowing the unison width improved it - it's the last thing I would have tried. I would have thought that *widening* the unison width would sort of defuse the problem, but the opposite seems to be the case.

I like some movement in the sound too and it's good that the Pro version allows the unison width to be set per-note.

Greg.

Now i've played the mellow preset. I don't hear overtones that I would call raspy, exactly, but I agree the unison detuning could be narrower. A big piano sound, in any case, particularly given the arched velocity curve. Could the velocity curve be part of what you're hearing--the notes are brighter than you expect because of the arch?

Hi Jake. I agree the detuning is a bit too much in the high register though it helps getting a lot of movement in the overtones. I corrected it with a downward slope from C4 to C6 from 1.5 to 1.12 and kept that value all the way to C7. I didn't upload anything because I did some other changes that were more for my own setup.

Cheers,
Greg.

Gilles' second ("warm") preset.

I don't have any problems like this with the stock presets.

Greg.

Hm...I don't see a preset called "warm" in the Files area. Is it the "mellow" preset?

Btw I realise that my opinion of Gille's presets may not be shared by others - I have no idea. (what do you think, Jake?)

Greg.

I don't have any problems like this with the stock presets.

Greg.

Without decreasing the unison width, though, I came up with the following combinations of Cutoff and Q Factor (respectively), to produce a reasonably natural sound, with the aim to produce the brightest possible tone without sounding unnatural. I tried Cutoff at a few different values, and then adjusted Q appropriately. I tested at FFF across the keyboard range.

0.3,0.75
1.0,0.9
1.75,1.1
(I did try it with the Cutoff at max, but no value for Q produced a really natural sound IMHO)

Lowering the lid made the sound mellower, but didn't eliminate the problem.

Gilles: if they lock you up hopefully they'll let you take Pianoteq with you.

Greg.

I've just gone back to that Horowitz CD and listened to some forte playing - I do like this a fair bit more than the material you uploaded.   

Greg.

I like Horowitz's sound too, but only he could produce it. This is all very subjective (and time and context dependent, as was very well explained in another thread) and on top of that our personal taste for music or pianist plays a great role in determining our ideal, so to speak.

To go back to my original idea (and more in line with the thread title) I wanted to show how the new model brought us closer to one possible ideal when reproducing a performance that needs this kind of sound.

Trying to react to your comments I then found that the mellower result makes for a more playable preset by me... others with different technique and keyboard might not agree, this is perfectly fine with me.

A typical Steinway concert grand is a huge beast that can sound tame or roar like hell depending on who touches it. This goes also for lesser pianos. I sing at times in a symphony orchestra choir and our usual pianist-accompanist (also organist) can get a huge sound from a smallish Yamaha upright out of tune most of the time. When he is replaced, I am always amazed as to how different and thinner the same piano sounds!

Just to recap, I can mostly play music that doesn't require that huge sound but it's nice to know it can be approached by pianoteq, and yes it's not a Steinway yet, but it sure can feel like one at times...

By the way, I am francophone so I had for instance to get a translation for "harsh" which at first I thought you meant a sort of harmonic distortion, and in french is translated "dur" or hard, which is entirely different. By the same token, I took the word "lush" from your own comment, I would have used maybe "colorful" or "rich".

Finally, I may have inadvertently broken forum rules by posting bits of CDs, and shortly afterwards I changed my mind, but the "delete" button that we used to have on the Files page is now gone.

I like the very clear bright sound but it sounds like it has just a touch of flanging effect added to it, and I don't like that.
I have learnt that the "modulation" effect in reverbs can cause this, though, so it is possible that this objectionable sound was introduced by running the recording through a reverb with some modulation applied.(?) If it has, then it would be interesting to know whether I would still find it objectionable without the reverb processing.  (and of course, I will never know)

Greg.

Thanks for the lid position suggestion. Sounds good. (But with it at that position, reducing the 2nd partial more than a decibel or two suddenly makes the sound too mellow--the lid seems to cut even the partials that close to the fundamental a lot.)