While we are waiting in the final days before release, I thought it'd be fun to though around some feature predictions. Here's a couple:
- "Virtual rooms" within which you can locate your piano including the new upright piano model.
- Pro version: Will allow you to create your own piano model based on samples.
He. He. He.
I'd love to have shortcuts so I can change some presets and settings without having to look at the laptop screen.
I'd love to have shortcuts so I can change some presets and settings without having to look at the laptop screen.
You can do that in Pianoteq 3 already... You can have keyboard shortcuts for previous/next instrument and previous/next preset, as well as assign any MIDI message (but I suggest Program Change) to any preset in the Preset Manager...
He. He. He.
to which prediction
I predict PTQ 4 will:
- make my crappy classical reading sound like Vladimir Ashkenazy,
- make a decent cup of Cappuccino (midi assignable, of course ...)
I'm not interested (really) in presets or DSP that will allow me to "put my piano in virtual rooms". I have some very nice plugins that can handle that. What I want is a fundamental improvement in the source tone of the sound. One that just sounds like a natural piano. I'll take it from there in my DAW.
I think what most customers of virtual pianos expect is a product that will give them perfectly EQ'd and master-quality results right out of the box. I think if any of them actually heard the room sound of their favorite recorded piano before it was processed for final master, they'd be a little shocked!
Curt
EvilDragon wrote:He. He. He.
to which prediction
None.
I'd love to have a virtual pianist inside the virtual piano so I can stop to play crappy things and just listen to my song building by itself wonderfully
"- make my crappy classical reading sound like Vladimir Ashkenazy,"
Don't need PTQ 4 for that ! Pretty much you just need to play all your repertoire as if you're in a hurry to go to the bathroom, as mechanically and with as little soul as humanly possible. It helps if you're sick of playing them over and over again, too.
"- make my crappy classical reading sound like Vladimir Ashkenazy,"
Don't need PTQ 4 for that ! Pretty much you just need to play all your repertoire as if you're in a hurry to go to the bathroom, as mechanically and with as little soul as humanly possible. It helps if you're sick of playing them over and over again, too.
:-), I see you're a big "fan". Do you prefer Horowitz then?
rlburnside wrote:"- make my crappy classical reading sound like Vladimir Ashkenazy,"
Don't need PTQ 4 for that ! Pretty much you just need to play all your repertoire as if you're in a hurry to go to the bathroom, as mechanically and with as little soul as humanly possible. It helps if you're sick of playing them over and over again, too.
:-), I see you're a big "fan". Do you prefer Horowitz then?
I notice that you have a M-Audio 610 I/O. I have a M-Audio 410. The five Pianoteq mic outputs remain separated out and thru the 410 to five separate audio amps and speakers. The sound is really good . . much improved presence. Have you experimented with a similar set-up (?).
etalmor wrote:rlburnside wrote:"- make my crappy classical reading sound like Vladimir Ashkenazy,"
Don't need PTQ 4 for that ! Pretty much you just need to play all your repertoire as if you're in a hurry to go to the bathroom, as mechanically and with as little soul as humanly possible. It helps if you're sick of playing them over and over again, too.
:-), I see you're a big "fan". Do you prefer Horowitz then?
I notice that you have a M-Audio 610 I/O. I have a M-Audio 410. The five Pianoteq mic outputs remain separated out and thru the 410 to five separate audio amps and speakers. The sound is really good . . much improved presence. Have you experimented with a similar set-up (?).
Regretfully no - my original motivation in buying the M-Audio 610 was to record more than 2 analog channels simultaneously. But I haven't put it to much use since. Still I would like to hear about your sound setup. I used to use a single RCF 410-Art A monitor for live performance (small Jazz gigs), but it has never quite cut through the way I wanted it to - Pianoteq always sounded better in cheap stereo headphones.
-- Eran
unsin only one channel for a piano sound is really not a good idea, IMHO...
unsin only one channel for a piano sound is really not a good idea, IMHO...
Yeah, but it's half the weight of two channels!
But seriously, I was considering selling the RCF 310A and buying a pair of M-Audio Bx5 instead. That's about the same weight ... though less power, and I don't know if these near field monitors will be any good for a small gig ....
I wouldn't do that either: studio monitors are not efficient enough for live work: the M-Audio have 90 dB for 1W/1m efficiency, where your RCF gives you about 10 dB more, and that's A LOT, not even taking into account the fact that they also have 4 times more power ! You could consider a pair of 8" speakers, similar to your RCF but smaller, like the dB Technologies Opera 208D, it's a sister brand of RCF.
I wouldn't do that either: studio monitors are not efficient enough for live work: the M-Audio have 90 dB for 1W/1m efficiency, where your RCF gives you about 10 dB more, and that's A LOT, not even taking into account the fact that they also have 4 times more power ! You could consider a pair of 8" speakers, similar to your RCF but smaller, like the dB Technologies Opera 208D, it's a sister brand of RCF.
Thanks Luc,
I've compared the RCF to another Opera model, and liked the RCF better ... also two 208D would be around 18Kg's, the single RCF is 12Kg's. I'd like to stay within the same weight envelope...
Not sure there is a good solution for me, but thanks for the tips. More ideas are welcome!
-- Eran