Piano Model Wishlist

Piano newbie here who is considering getting Pianoteq. I've had the demo for a couple of months but am easily overwhelmed by the sheer number of options. I'd want the electrics pack but if I just get tge Stage version that leaves only one piano to buy and the option anxiety is crippling as they all sound fantastic.

The piano that I see and hear in a lot in other areas is tge Yamaha CFX. It's my favourite model in my Yamaha digital keyboard and I also have Native Instruments "Noire" that is, apparently, also a CFX. TBH, owning Noire is probably the thing stopping me buying Pianoteq as it sounds really good and is probably way better than my meagre abilities justify.

The nearest thing to the CFX sound on my keyboard seems to be the new Kawai model but I'd probably go for one of the packs with more options if it's my only option. The Steinway D seems to make sense as a definitive reference with a lot of options but I'm enjoying the Petrofs more at the moment.

I'd also like to see more uprights as it's a sound I like (NI Gentleman is good).

Sorry for rambling on.

I suppose I'm not really at the stage where I know what constitutes a "good" piano sound. Maybe that's an indication that I shouldn't be making any purchase until I know what I'm supposed to be looking for.
I'd have thought the Steinway D pack (NY & Hamburg) would have been a no-brainer and as close to a definitive piano sound as there should be. Maybe it is but I've read a lot of criticism of it.
Like I said, my main interest is the electrics pack and my first piano pack will just be what it is. The Petrovs are edging it at the moment but that might change.

Just waiting in case there's a Black Friday offer but I believe that Stage or Standard are not usually discounted. Would have thought it even less likely with the recent Pianoteq 9 release. I'd be annoyed if it turned out to be the one year that they did it!

"I had considered the Bechstein but there is just something about that when I pull up the demo that kinda grates on me even though I like the samples on the man Pianoteq page. (?)"
The velocity curve of your keyboard may need to be adjusted for this one; it is perhaps the most important setting of all.

I myself would love a CFX, as it would fill a gap for clinical, modern, notey sounds in my Pianoteq lineup. But my money is on a Faz as the next instrument: it's very in vogue at the moment. I'm woudn't be too excited about it if it came out because to my ear it's quite similar to the Bosi (which I'm very happy with already) - so to me this area is covered. We'll see

I'd say it is! In earlier versions (v7) there was a consensus that the model wasn't quite there yet, but the steinways got good in v8 and great in v9. (real) steinways blend notes really well, almost to a fault; it makes sense that for some playing situations, people prefer a more percussive instrument. But I'd definitely have the Steinway models in my stable.

In the back of my mind I always hope that Modartt release a timpani set. Appreciate it's niche and not a commercial priority in all likelihood, but the non-piano model packs have the orchestral percussion section, as well as harps, covered otherwise. Pianoteq's strength seems to lie in simulating plucked/struck strings and membranes, so I always imagine that they are well set up for drum skins.

For continuous excitation modes, there are pretty good physical models by other vendors (SWAM for strings; Infinite for woodwinds and brass, etc), so we're actually quite close to a fully modelled orchestra! I think that would be pretty cool.

I'm the same. Expected to love the Bechstein but went with the Steingraeber instead - there was just too much pressure in the ~10kHz+ range for my liking. I will say though that they closed the gap between the two for me in v9, so it'd be interesting to hear your thoughts with the latest changes in mind.

I haven't spent any significant time with the Steingraeber. I remember of playing on the demo a bit and not feeling much, moving on to the next.

The Bechstein, I had thought I wanted to add. But when I went to the demo and started playing, it felt like I was playing a synthesizer. Very sharp rise / attack, almost a flat sustain, then a drop off to nothingness almost as fast as the attack. The sound in the middle was nice, though quite bright for my ear. I do suspect it could be reigned in by adjusting some of the settings. I didn't go that far. I listened to a few of the presets and then moved on.

If I happen to see a Black Friday deal that really tugs at the ol' purse strings, I may more carefully go through the stable of options and see if there arent a few that I think I want. It's not that I actually "need" another one. Love the Bosie, and use it a LOT. But... it's nice to have options. 

Speaking of Black Friday, it's coming quick! Only 5 days away as I type this and I'd be surprised if there isn't some kind of deal about to pop up.

I agree. Any european upright would be nice to have.

Having said that, I've still not found yet any upright piano plugin that actually sounds like the thing, including Pianoteq's U4. Hoping someone figures how to capture all what these pianos have to offer.

Honestly, Coises, I have no idea where you got that from. Modartt’s website certainly doesn’t mention anything about a Kontakt library piano. And besides, pianos are not modeled from samples, the recordings are only made to perform fine-tuning once the instrument itself has been modeled: its strings, hammers, and soundboard.

No, it`s not Sauter. Here we go:

https://www.steingraeber.de/en/steingra...nt-pianos/

Well, it is strange — maybe a Modartt moderator could clarify it. Perhaps both things are true: the fine-tuning of the model might have been done using the recordings made for the Kontakt library of the same name, or maybe they did some kind of physical-inverse process to derive the physical model solely from recordings.

The Google AI Summary (not always to be trusted) says:

If this is true, the same Teldex session produced *both* the samples for Bechstein's own Kontakt library and *the data* for Modartt's Bechstein model.
Of course, the devil is in the detail as to what actually constitutes "the data" and if this differs from the sample recordings.

The implication seems to be that Modartt were a collaborator with Bechstein and I'd assume they performed whatever procedures they usually would when creating a model, rather than just using the samples to create the model.

There's a lot of supposition in this though. It might be that samples can be used when creating a model. I suppose it doesn't really matter and it's up to us to decide if we like the end result or not.

EDIT:
Sorry. Philippe's reply landed whole I was composing my long post. So it seems like you can create a model from samples, presumably if they're detailed enough recordings. Absolutely great and no problem for me but interesting nevertheless.

Correct, it's known that it is the same model, with the parameters customised for each instrument (doubly impressive if you consider that some of the instruments on offer aren't even pianos). Hence the morphing feature, which can create in-between instruments.

I don't know if it's ever been revealed how much of this fitting is done by hand vs regression-matching and signal processing, but my guess would be that anything spectral (eg. The soundboard resonance profile) is algorithmically fitted at least as a first pass.

I'm fascinated that this can be done from run of the mill samples though! I had expected the necessary recordings to be something non-standard (e.g. a soundboard impulse response recording). That's really cool!

All this debate takes me back three decades, when physical modeling of musical instruments more or less started to become known (at least that was the case for me), which I first discovered and used on a NeXT computer. And for me—being a musician interested in creating sound by non-natural means, and someone who had become accustomed to understanding the processes and techniques behind different types of synthesis and sound processing—the collision with the physical/mathematical barrier of physical modeling was a tough one.
And now I run into it again, as I suppose many of us in this forum do (otherwise we wouldn’t be here flailing around blindly—or half-blindly).

I'd say it's reasonable to assume that the model has discrete strategies to pick from for stuff like plucking vs striking, so that you can't interpolate between them while morphing, agreed. That would explain the discontinuity in the morphing feature when crossing over the 50% mark.

We're deep into speculation territory here though, e.g. it's hard to say how much of the model is shared by all instruments, and how much is modular. For example, with the mallet instruments, I don't know if the primary resonances are simulated as 1D strings or 2D surfaces, or conversely, if the string instruments use an edge case of a 2D resonator simulation (that is, a very thin one), or a separate string model. So it's hard to say from the outside how general the model actually is

I've made this request before, but here goes anyway. The clavichord included with the historic instrument package is not a particularly authentic reproduction of a typical 18th century clavichord. There are many good copies of Silbermann or other mid 18th century 5 octave unfretted double strung clavichords out there, and it would be absolutely terrific to have one, with included aftertouch for the bebung effect. I suspect there is more demand for this than you might think. Thanks for considering.

Plucked instruments should be (relatively) easy for them now. They already started on this with the Classical Guitar. So I'm guessing a lot of the basic legwork is already done. But that's just my guess.

Out of interest, since I've not had much exposure to clavichords, I'd love to hear your observations on what's off with the Neupert model? Are there better examples out there?

This might be a little left field, but I’d like to see a Baldwin Electric Harpsichord developed by Modartt.

I love that Modartt can replicate any piano sound. I'd love to have an American upright, or a Baldwin, or a spinet, or a... Belarus!!! A more vintage let's say. And of course.... a Hammond B3 organ!!! I think this is what is missing in Pianoteq's instrument range.

Actually, in terms of real acoustic pianos that I've played in realistic settings for an average person, I have really enjoyed Baldwin 7 footers probably more than any other.

I have no idea whether they would be considered worthy for many who have played some of the very high end pianos. But I kinda think that if I were to want to fill my tiny living room with a grand piano, a Baldwin 7' grand would be sweet. Always loved that warm rich tone, spoke to me way more than a similar sized Steinway. (There would actually be a possible path to own one of those old Baldwins if I was willing to rebuild it myself. I'm getting old enough, though, that I don't know if I wanna take on that size of project anymore.)

The old Mason & Hamlin pianos were not ones I saw often, they were kinda rare in the circles I traveled in my tuner/tech years. They were built like battleships, though, solid as any. And the few I saw sounded good. Still, not much to go on as what I saw was pretty tired. Never got to rebuild one of those.

Very nice. IMHO Organteq should go the way of Pianoteq in allowing a difference in the cosmetics of the interface and provide a hammon-like interface and perhaps other options too.

Did you share the settings for this anywhere?