@Beco: your forthcoming documentary sounds fascinating - I'm looking forward to it! If it's ready by about 20th December you could enter it for the Pianoteq Video Competition

Hi Dazric,

I am very busy in the end of this year, so I couldn't finish my video on December 20th. Probably in the mid of January of 2023 I think I can complete this task, well I will try anyway. Just a little more patience, it is not easy to manage the hotel at the and of the year.

Best regards

I would like to raise a question that has bothered me since the very beginning of using Pianoteq (since I've been a user since the very first version). Namely: Is it possible to get even closer to the sound of a real piano?

I am a professional musician (composer, orchestrator, conductor) with extensive experience, and also a great enthusiast of the physical modelling concept. Along with Pianoteq, I work with such rare and still expressive sounding instruments as Yamaha VL1 and Korg OASys.

The problem is that when my colleagues hear a Pianoteq recording, after a while they identify it as not a real piano. Although everyone notes the expressiveness and performance flexibility of the instrument.

Roughly speaking, all claims can be reduced to two main points:

1. The timbre is somewhat synthetic;
2. The sound lacks clarity, it is somewhat muddy and poorly immersed in the orchestral context, and is lost in it.

I suggest that the problem statement, which sometimes comes up on the forum, that Pianoteq is an instrument in its own right and should not be considered as an imitation of a piano, is incorrect. Pianoteq is, after all, an emulation of a piano. And the task initially was just to get as close as possible to the natural sound of an acoustic instrument recorded in a concert hall or studio.

Thus, I would like to comprehend if the current version is the uttermost one, in this respect. Is it possible to consider that the physical modelling of the piano is brought to its limit? Of course, each next version improves compared to the previous one. But, unfortunately, those two points that I wrote about above remain unresolved so far.

The thesis and various articles written by some members of the Pianoteq team explain the difference between the mathematical model and the practical implementation of a VST that takes into consideration actual power of home computers and playability . In particular one metric was very illustrative, when Juliette in her thesis achieved in 2013 explained that a 300 nodes cluster was necessary to process the model and generate a sound. I actually run pianoteq  8 on a max book pro late 2013 and it runs like a dream. So I guess , if we consider the principle of Moore’s law about computing power , even if Raw power doesn’t double every 2 years , the increase in mips / year still respects the fundamental of the law .  If you add to that the fact that model algorithms will also get better and better , pianoteq and us happy users are up for a great journey . It is just a matter of time .

A slightly out of tune piano, one that's not quite freshly tuned, also has a warmer sound to it than a perfectly tuned piano. I noticed that recently when my piano tuner tuned my grand. I felt he made the instrument sound cold and distant rather than welcoming. The weather wasn't cold and dry either, so I can't say it was that. The piano sounded unfriendly rather than welcoming to play.

With Pianoteq, we see an amazing product that attempts to model these various aspects digitally but the problem with the digital world is there's only so much data that can be captured. Our sampling is a tiny subset of a larger infinite set of sounds out there in the real world of acoustic instruments. We can adjust the parameters to a certain extent to mimic the real instruments, but we can only do so much because our computer hardware, while still being the fastest ever today for personal use, still can't capture every bit of the infinite sound pallet found in the real world. To paraphrase what was said in the beginning of the thread, who knows what kind of computers we'll have on the desktop to use. (Note: Desktop here refers to personal computer regardless of being a Mac, Linux, tower or laptop).

With that said, I treat Pianoteq as it is. I know it's a digital representation of the best pianos in the world. I mean, how many people out there can wander from a New York Steinway D one day or within the same hour to a Petroff concert grand all without spending more than a couple of hundred dollars or euros? This is a virtue of the digital world. How many of us would dare detune one of these pianos, or play with the hammers and adjust the dampers?

For me Pianoteq is a compromise I need to make because I can't always play my real grand piano. I have an elderly father living with me who sleeps a lot more now during the day, and I sure as heck don't want to disturb him. With Pianoteq, I can plug in my headphones into my Roland and practice and play away on the best grands in the world without bothering anyone else.

I would like to raise a question that has bothered me since the very beginning of using Pianoteq (since I've been a user since the very first version). Namely: Is it possible to get even closer to the sound of a real piano?

I am a professional musician (composer, orchestrator, conductor) with extensive experience, and also a great enthusiast of the physical modelling concept. Along with Pianoteq, I work with such rare and still expressive sounding instruments as Yamaha VL1 and Korg OASys.

The problem is that when my colleagues hear a Pianoteq recording, after a while they identify it as not a real piano. Although everyone notes the expressiveness and performance flexibility of the instrument.

Roughly speaking, all claims can be reduced to two main points:

1. The timbre is somewhat synthetic;
2. The sound lacks clarity, it is somewhat muddy and poorly immersed in the orchestral context, and is lost in it.

Your opinion from professional circles is very valuable but to clarify and make the discussion precise there are three issues:

How the comparison  of Pianoteq vs. real instruments is made? Especially what is the acoustical system used for auditing Pianoteq vs. real grand piano? Is the comparison done using default settings of Pianoteq or with even its myriads of tweaks and tons of piano models the problems are uncorrectable?

Second aspect is what the professional circles opinionate about Pianoteq vs. best systems based on sampling? In this case fair comparison is easy since both can be played through the same acoustical chain. Again, if some sampling systems are always considered better, no Pianoteq tweaks can help?

Third, this comparison of sampling vs. Pianoteq could also be made in blind test to exclude any bias of natural vs. artificial. One wonders if the results would be unequivocal, Pianoteq on the spot uncovered as not the real grand???

I tend to think that there is still limited scope for improving but overall this is getting close to the situation similar with real instruments where top professionals select them based on taste and repertoire, here is an example where professional selects among five Steinways the one which will fit best to specific music and recording environment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFMsEZTy5Bo

Apparently Pianoteq is not yet at the level of such sophistication... but this is matter of subjectivity aka even more elaborate presets?

I would like to raise a question that has bothered me since the very beginning of using Pianoteq (since I've been a user since the very first version). Namely: Is it possible to get even closer to the sound of a real piano?

I am a professional musician (composer, orchestrator, conductor) with extensive experience, and also a great enthusiast of the physical modelling concept. Along with Pianoteq, I work with such rare and still expressive sounding instruments as Yamaha VL1 and Korg OASys.

The problem is that when my colleagues hear a Pianoteq recording, after a while they identify it as not a real piano. Although everyone notes the expressiveness and performance flexibility of the instrument.

Roughly speaking, all claims can be reduced to two main points:

1. The timbre is somewhat synthetic;
2. The sound lacks clarity, it is somewhat muddy and poorly immersed in the orchestral context, and is lost in it.

I suggest that the problem statement, which sometimes comes up on the forum, that Pianoteq is an instrument in its own right and should not be considered as an imitation of a piano, is incorrect. Pianoteq is, after all, an emulation of a piano. And the task initially was just to get as close as possible to the natural sound of an acoustic instrument recorded in a concert hall or studio.

Thus, I would like to comprehend if the current version is the uttermost one, in this respect. Is it possible to consider that the physical modelling of the piano is brought to its limit? Of course, each next version improves compared to the previous one. But, unfortunately, those two points that I wrote about above remain unresolved so far.

@Beco: your forthcoming documentary sounds fascinating - I'm looking forward to it! If it's ready by about 20th December you could enter it for the Pianoteq Video Competition

Thank you Dazric, but I will not compete this year.

This contest is very nice and always has a lot good people with nice ideas and great talent and for me this contest was great, especially to make music when I was complete out of musical thing. But I am focus more about the premier here in America to be the first piano concert with pianoteq with the real orchestra and besides the concert was November 10th I used the version 7.5.4 at the moment. I would not be legitimate to participate anyway.
Thank you once again and I hope you like the the video. I will be very open to any comments to improve any other presentation that wil come in the future.

Best regards.

I would like to raise a question that has bothered me since the very beginning of using Pianoteq (since I've been a user since the very first version). Namely: Is it possible to get even closer to the sound of a real piano?

I am a professional musician (composer, orchestrator, conductor) with extensive experience, and also a great enthusiast of the physical modelling concept. Along with Pianoteq, I work with such rare and still expressive sounding instruments as Yamaha VL1 and Korg OASys.

The problem is that when my colleagues hear a Pianoteq recording, after a while they identify it as not a real piano. Although everyone notes the expressiveness and performance flexibility of the instrument.

Roughly speaking, all claims can be reduced to two main points:

1. The timbre is somewhat synthetic;
2. The sound lacks clarity, it is somewhat muddy and poorly immersed in the orchestral context, and is lost in it.

I suggest that the problem statement, which sometimes comes up on the forum, that Pianoteq is an instrument in its own right and should not be considered as an imitation of a piano, is incorrect. Pianoteq is, after all, an emulation of a piano. And the task initially was just to get as close as possible to the natural sound of an acoustic instrument recorded in a concert hall or studio.

Thus, I would like to comprehend if the current version is the uttermost one, in this respect. Is it possible to consider that the physical modelling of the piano is brought to its limit? Of course, each next version improves compared to the previous one. But, unfortunately, those two points that I wrote about above remain unresolved so far.

Hi Igor, this is a very interesting topic.

In this year I was inveted to play with a orchestra the Grieg's piano concerto, but the theater did not have a piano and neither a sponsored to rent a good one, so I dicided to take my casio px-160 and used the pianoteq (Bluthner model one) to the concert.

Spoiler alert, I really liked, besides I have many problems with the mic, but we can have a good ideia how well the real orchestra mixed with pianoteq. We still working on videos and audio of the concert and if the final mix will be kind of ok I can post over here for the opinions of this great forum.

Since I am not a professional pianist and took me 20 years from my last recital because my change of life (today I am run my own hotel in the Brazilian mountains), I think it will be a very interesting way how well (or not) the real orchestra worked with pianoteq.

My plan is to make a little documentary (around 10 minutes) about this premier because I think it is the first concert made in Latin America, or maybe in America with a real orchestra and a piano software.

Anyway, I really would like the opinion from all of you and I am open for any ideias that I can improve the recording. I think maybe around December 20th the documentary it will be ready.

My best wishes.

Commercial real world considerations are bound to slow development of the engine in some regards. Then again they fund and encourage development too, so I don't want that to sound like anti capitalist nonsense!

Anyway this Pong game was amazing until I saw the incredible Pacman and Frogger!

Roughly speaking, all claims can be reduced to two main points:

1. The timbre is somewhat synthetic;
2. The sound lacks clarity, it is somewhat muddy and poorly immersed in the orchestral context, and is lost in it.

Thus, I would like to comprehend if the current version is the uttermost one, in this respect. Is it possible to consider that the physical modelling of the piano is brought to its limit? Of course, each next version improves compared to the previous one. But, unfortunately, those two points that I wrote about above remain unresolved so far.

Sound is hard to pin down and every end-user has a different setup. When I hear a live acoustic piano sound, I basically hear the pitch speed, duration, and volume. This is what I hear as a timbre. This is accompanied by the mechanics, the condition, the room, and the feedback from the piano.

I think Pianoteq has created such a high level of physical modeling of a piano, but I still believe mathematically creating a piano is limitless and subjected to those creating it. Considering Pianoteq, Roland, Piano V, MetaPiano, how many ways are there to mathematically recreate a sound?

I think that in the future it is not a question which one is more real, sampled or modelled - it is which one can create a sound like (sound like) some special instrument from 1930 or like the sound one heard in a concert or…..or….

Well, that’s what I think about it. And, have not played a real piano since 2013 when found Ptq. To me it is like a new exciting instrument every day that I have to play every free time every day (and my old Roland have not been used since 2013).

Best,

Stig

Pianoteq 8 enthusiast, and all instrumentsteqenthusiast

I can tell the difference between Pianoteq and a real piano recording, it's very close now, but every increment in Pianoteq software maybe gets a teeny tiny bit better and we are perhaps at the point of inflection where to pass a critical threshold of realism, ML is needed, if only to help tune the parameters for the model, but perhaps to replace it entirely with something that contains the essence of what a piano does when it generates music.

To be perfectly honest, I'm kind of surprised such software doesn't exist yet. Maybe just in a lab in academia. I should ask my friend who's got a Ph'D in ML-based music synthesis what the current state of the art is. I'm almost certain his response won't be Pianoteq, sorry. I say this as a huge fan of PTQ, I think it will be superseded at some point, possibly soon, who knows.