Dull, dump and dead

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong.

I was a Pianoteq hater mainly because Pianoteq 3. But things have changed and I quite like Pianoteq 4 now because it is much more realistic in sound. With Pianoteq 3 it was just few minutes playing and I was already wondering whether I am playing a piano at all. With Pianoteq 4 I can play for quite some time without being distracted by any shortcomings of the sound. Of course, it's not perfect and still has some way to improve but I find your opinion totally opposite to mine.

I dont want to sound mean but I had to post again as some minutes later I'm still laughting at this, on real life and can't stop it, I just imaginge pianoteq 4 sending sine, saw and square waves as the final waves, epic.

On a more serious tone, I don't get it, I undestand people who did not like pianoteq 3 tone, I loved p3 but I asked for a more beautiful tone, more powerful bass and better attack and that was improved a lot on pianoteq 4, in fact, I was very lucky to get in the same week the release of p4 but also got ivory 2 and eastwest quantum leap pianos. Ivory 2 is a very pretty clean sound but now feels hollow to me, eastwest is ok but P4 is above them by a lot. I could do comparisons if you want, I also have the Vintage D, is good, but I've realized that mp3 comparison is not like playing the real thing. Before P4 the main advantage of pianoteq over samples was everything but the tone for me, still some samples had a bit better sound, now I'd say  tone as the main reason to use pianoteq 4 D4, is just so pretty and organic it could have been produced at a hippie farm.

Also you know you can load the instruments from P3 on P4, don't you?, your whole post is wrong man, even claiming that those instruments were gone.

Still, and offtopic, I dont find a leap that big between M1, K1 on P3 and P4, I see the biggest leap on D4, was it because D4 was designed having Pianoteq 4 on mind?, does everyone else feels the same?.

Hello Mr. Rohade,

I agree with your sentiments, exactly, about the sampled piano libraries you mentioned above. 

Over the past several years (before discovering Pianoteq 3 when it was first released), I found myself "acquiring" various sampled libraries, fully believing (or hoping?) that I would find a set that made me believe I was seated at a real piano, or at least listening to a good recording.  My arsenal included EWQL Pianos, Ivory (1st edition and then the Italian Grand add-on), Bluethner Digital Model One, another Bosendorfer in Kontakt format (by now, I've forgotten which one), and several AKAI formated CD ROMs of sampled Bosies, Steinways, etc. etc.  I even downloaded the trial version of Pianoteq (Version 1) when it first came out.  Prior to the software instruments, I was into hardware instruments from Roland and Emu -- all to no avail.

The upshot of acquiring those libraries, at considerable cost I might add, was that I was never convinced to stop looking (listening) for that one set that would make me stop looking for more.  One "close call" came at the NAMM Show in 2009, when I heard the VSL Bosendorfer, but I didn't have the "stomach" to purchase it;  it didn't help that the NAMM demo version had quite amount of delay before hearing the notes from streaming all of those samples from hard disk, even if the beginnings of the notes were loaded into RAM.

That one set was Pianoteq, again in Version 3 just as it came out.  I have not looked back since then, except to completely remove all of my sampled piano libraries from my computer.  Oh yes, I did re-load the EWQL Bosendorfer, just to give it a second chance, but I immediately uninstalled it.

As you had said in your quote, the tone had been drastically improved in Pianoteq Version 4.  I am in daily contact (but not in my home studio) with a nice Steinway M (5'7") and a similarly sized K. Kawai grand.  When playing Pianoteq 4 (especially with AKG-702 headphones) in my home studio, I feel no "lack" of sound, and also feel no need to acquire my own 7'+ grand piano.

Cheers,

Joe

This forum has reached a stage where I have  quit with it!
It is starting to become an intolerant  club of PTQ fundamentalists.
I hope this fanaticism helps the product to get someday near to a piano-like sound. I fear not! 
Maybe some ability to take criticism    would do better.
While being a part of the Beta team (testing D4) I couldn't make clear what I hear wrong with PTQ, but I still hear this artificial-synthetic qualities in the actual version. I also said often that V3 is better in this term then V4. I'm not blinded by the FACT that D4 is sounding "like" a Steinway type of sound, because the fundamental problem of all PTQ versions (irritating synthetic artefacts) did become worse with V4. For everyone whose ear brain system does mask this well enough, it will be an optimum of an instrument. (which it in fact is!) I respect that and it is no deficit. It is NOT a question of good an bad, better hearing or more or less professionalism.  But for everyone ho does notice it (irritating synthetic artefacts), and there are quit a lot of people who feel this way with PTQ, it is too irritating to overlook it.
To imply, in what ever way, that they are crazy (take me into account) is disrespectful, poor and worthless.
This is why I've quit the Beta team (testing D4) because there is no way to talk about things the one hear and the others don't. (no valuation) It always leads into personal insults. (not necessarily but here often enough)
I will leave the forum and the software at this point , keeping an eye on it maybe a future release will solve the problem but it could last up to 10 years.

Good luck, to the Moddart-team. I hope you will not be measured against your followers!

I feel sorry this post had consequences, at first I even thought it was a troll post and even if its serious, when thread starter said that the old pianos were gone demostrates the time he has spent playing and researching on pianoteq 4, very little to zero.

Sometimes I even feel I cannot praise pianoteq 4 enough, call me whatever you want, fundamentalist, zealot, I don't care. As I said I have Ivory 2 Italian, Eastwest pianos full version, Vintage D and I have zero posts about those pianos and dont check about them anymore, just pianoteq, why?, because Im so excited about Pianoteq 4 that dialy I come here to see a new fxp, a new comment, for me Pianoteq 4 is a dream that became a reality and I hope the people behind the product knows that, threads like this make me afraid that they wont realize how much of an accomplish is pianoteq 4. So I say, again, I totally disagree with the thread starter and about the guy leaving, if you were a beta tester you had the tools to isolate whatever sound you didnt like, and even so, you read the post about the guy who didnt like some sounds from some notes and he removed them all and made his own fxp?, why dont you try that?.

Btw I recommend to some people to put the speakers inside some wood, I have a clavinova as midi controller (I know its not smart but I got the clavinova before knowing about samples or modelling) and when I put whe speakers into the wood of the clavinova, it was even better.

I strongly feel that PTQ4 is much better than v3. It's much more complete instrument: it sounds much more even from the bottom to the top. Also, it's much more flexible: you can get very wide palette of different pianos from this d4 model.

Personally I've been lucky to see and hear its development for years now and also be part of some beta tests. I have noticed that this is a product which clearly divides people to two camps: lovers and haters. As much as I am amazed of those fanatic critics, I still feel strange to read comments like "PTQ beats ALL the sample libraries and other models like V-piano. Period." Personally I feel that PTQ is a great and brave project which has many great features and it can give you something those sample libraries cannot, but same time it has weaknesses and some artificial character or lack of woodness. I totally accept that latter "fact" and still say that it's a great product.

Other thing is that IMO Modartt should really try to take more real critics to its next beta team. I have had a feeling that most of the beta guys have been kind of PTQ lovers (there's nothing wrong with those! I am a kind of a fan too...). At least if it's about developing a new model. One other thing is that I feel that recent beta teams have been more solo or home players than band or live players (like myself). I think live pop/rock/jazz players are after different piano sound than players which primarily use it at home or in studio. On stage for example all those string resonance nuances are quite secondary to basic sound. I have said this before: when we'll see someone like Herbie Hancock using PTQ on stage? This is a real test for a product IMO...

It’s sad, but I agree with many bitter words of @azrael4. I’ve been fun of PT from its very beginning – I tried to use its 1st Version! Of course, the PT 3 differs radically from that one. For the long period of time I’ve been (as many of us, PT patriots) waiting for the Version 4. Then it appears – at last! To say it’s been disappointing for me is to say nothing. During 2 days long I’ve been in real desperation. I don't want to say: “Nothing changes” or “PT 4 is worse than PT 3”… Surely it sounds better! But not fundamentally, if to take into consideration these long 3 years of hard researching work of Modartt team.

The same dullness of sound… the same phase problems, leading to its nasal quality…

The thing is that all of PT merits are hardly masked being put into orchestra context (even into a non-aggressive string orchestra). Seems as if someone plays piano from neighbor’s flat. If to tweak parameters here and there to make sound brighter, the overall sound assumes some artificial metallic quality, and becomes too synthetic.

Haven’t say anything new? Perhaps. But the question is: doesn’t the concept (doctrine, fundamental vector of equations) of this particular approach to sound synthesis exhaust its potential? Isn’t it similar to an attempt to improve steam train locomotive engine instead of to step onto the next level and invent a kind of the gas-engine?

Again, I wouldn’t like to be misunderstood. I very much appreciate Modartt’s efforts to do all its best. I would just like the things to move…

For me, personally, the bill of weighting PT weaknesses is as:

1.    Dullness, lack of clarity – even if to do the sound artificially bright by editing Mallet Hardness or / and EQ
2.    Nasal character
3.    A touch of metal colouration

Just a friendly reminde  :
When you refer to V4, it's a good idea to tell if you refer to D4 model or to all pianos of pianoteq v4, like the Ki, YC5, Bechstein, Erard etc.

The major improvement it's on D4 model, and the other, despite got some improvement too, do not get all the richness of D4.

Considering that the CPU use with pianoteq did not changed much at all,  comparing with the PC processing power rise in the last 6 years, I think they did a fine upgrade.

Maybe if they reformulate the basic algorithm, the sound board model, harp model, to allow more characteristic to be selected in the equation resume process, which creates more demanding CPU needs, this little problem will be solved.

But for other side, the more they learn to solve the problems without appeal to change CPU needs, the more refined the system gets.  Maybe it's a step required to refine the technology.

May I tell you to me there's not much difference between 3 & 4? It is for sure an improvement, amongst other things because of the convolution reverb, and I like knowing the developers still are interested in maintaining and improving their product's quality - and keep in mind these nifty extras as the cembali and the bells! Personally I dislike the new D4 because of unpleasant overtones on the deeper bass notes, but - hey! - I don't have to use it, or I can modify it to make it sound more pleasant to my ears.
As I wrote earlier somewhere in this forum: To me, Pianoteq is better than a real piano, and it sounds better. It sounds as perfect or not perfect as I like it, while a real piano sounds as it sounds. And did you notice there are always certain notes on real instruments that have a "synthetic" element? We tend to ignore them because the instrument is real...
Finally, there are many other things - the room and your or the microphones' (real or virtual) position - that make a sound brilliant or dull or whatever...
No. Keep your feet on the earth. Pianoteq 4 is a valuable instrument.

I find this statement to be true. I attend a church that has a Steinway D grand, a baby grand, and an upright acoustic pianos, as well as two digital Roland (I can't remember the make). When I hear these and in light of many discussions on this forum, I have often thought how metallic, even synthetic they can actually sound. When played staccato they reach piercing a pitch, especially the baby grand and the upright, yet still sounds soft when played softly. Many say woody but I hear a sort of ceramic sound.

Here is my attempt the describe the sound of sampled notes:
I hear a sort of air behind the notes.
Notes seems shorter.
More amplified when played staccato. This must be the attack feature that many desire. (The GEM rpx-p has this attack in its sound).
At higher end of the keyboard they seem to have a sort of tweeting sound in the end of the notes.
Keys sound less integrated.

I think P4 sounds quite realistic.
Maybe for some the effects achieved with the parameters needs to be more exaggerated in regards to putting in or stripping out sound elements.

I like the 'AMP' and 'COMP' feature in the 'Effects' panel, thought the drive slider is a bit unforgiving.
Turn on 3 AMPs and you could blow-up your speakers.