Chopin nocturne posth c# minor on Upright and others.

It's kinda obvious as I'm on this board but I prefer Pianoteq, Ivory is good, beautiful sound and very similar to the real D but lacks so much moving and effects resulting of a real acoustic and it shows on the comparison.

Hey Jake what's up man, yeah dog is there just for the beauty factor as I'm the one playing. The recording was done by the sound card directly, no mic, no room, well at least on Ivory you can't change mic position I think. Is not the same mid file I played twice as the feeling is different on every software, thats why the mistakes are also different as well hehe, btw that was my first time uploading something played by me.

I think i hear why many still prefer a sampled piano.
There is air around the sound on the sampled.
On Pianoteq there is this a kind of resonating inteference in the middle frequencies.
There is no space/air around the sound.

Nice recordings, thank you.
It would be nice if you could also play this piece on the Blüthner, i think the gap between Pianoteq and Ivory would be smaller.

Looking by the picture in each video, I supose the small dog prefers pianoteq, as he is looking a bit happier to the camera, while in the Ivory video he is looking to the floor (car seat)

Háa háaa....    :-)

Ok, seriously speaking, pianoteq today it's quite closer in tone to real pianos than 2 or 3 years ago, and this video cleary prove that.

I supose if you had named the pianoteq D4 as a Hi end sampler or real recording, and did the comparison using D4 and a pianoteq V2 version, sending the comparing back in time some years, many people would say that the "sampler" sounded natural as a real piano and V2 should one day reach this natural sound.

Pianoteq bluthner add-on have evan some more natural tone than D-4.  What about a third video using bluthner add-on for compare ???
Maybe Modartt folks could choose what they prefer as the best adjustments for voicing, mics, reverb etc... , to try to fit the recordins of the sampler.

The Steinway sampler have some natural metalic "noises" (nice metal "sound flicks"), but some peole may like it and some people may judge it as a small defect. A matter of taste so and not necessarilly a supreme statment  for superiority or inferiority.

Pianoteq also have the ability to create some few dislike for sampled piano's limitations, similar to what happens to pianists used to always play in real grand pianos, as it make our ears get attention the rich complex ressonances involved in a piano..

Was this Ivory I or Ivory II ???

Ivory II have some string ressonance and general sympathetic ressonance, but I heard it was not very well recreated.

I think the real benefit of PTQ is its playability. Definitely a recorded sound is very reminiscent of the original, but the pleasure of playing will never be the same, while PTQ sounds like "real". According to me .... of course.

greetings

This is the Bluthner version, I find the sound even better than the D4 yeah, is not the same midi, I prefer to play it again on every recording as every sound is different and brings new things to interpretation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbJO8mxrirg

Thanks again Beto!, I'm glad you liked the Bluthner as well, to me it sounds with more body than the D4, but still love the D4 as well. I added the link the the first post.

Also ty so much for the comment on the interpretation, love and find interesting those little details a lot. In fact I forgot to ask in my post that if anyone have some comment on my play as well, please do it. I'm learning by myself and would like to have some feedback even if you love it or hate it or anything. I played a little bit when I was a child, took organ classes a couple years, then didnt play for 20 and then I got a digital piano, then software pianos, but I started seriously learning pieces and everything about three months ago when I got my first acoustic piano.

It's harder to sound good on an acoustic specially when recorded and that's good for software pianos, if you want to record, its hard to have a good acoustics in the room, mic the piano, tuning, etc. Both worlds are good but I learned to use the sustain pedal when I got a real piano, however, the sustain pedal is far more similar to Pianoteq than Ivory, Ivory forgives a lot of mistakes and still sounds good.

Rohade,

I forgot to ask--which preset for the Pianoteq D4 did you use? Did you change any of the parameters?

Hi everybody,

First, let me say that i'm quite impressed by both Pianoteq D and Bluthner modelisation. I agree with Jake that the pianos are sounding very different. Experimentor made a point when he wrote that sampled piano and physical modelling can sound very good, but not so good too.

Personnaly I use virtual instruments for recording purpose. So most of the time I prefer a very good sampled (recorded) piano ( I own a «Vienna Imperial» Boesendorfer from Vienna Symphonic Library which have some less good sides too) rather then my Pianoteq virtual (synthetised) instrument. But I suppose that I would use most frequently my Pianoteq if I just wanted to play piano («better playability» argument).

From my point of view the Bluthner sounds less like a real piano than the D model (Pianoteq). The basses are very good, but the main difference with Pianoteq D is the perceived volume is much louder. This is probably the resulting of more compression (or more agressive limiter). As you know, higher perceived volume always seems to sound better. Less dynamic means more suitable for pop or jazz than classical music.

I must say in conclusion that I have never found a really satisfying combinason (electronic keyboard and virtual instrument ) that can compete with my grand piano (touch, presence, resonance, etc..). But it is so difficult to make good real piano recording ...

Thank you Rhoade for sharing these nice recordings.

CB

Hi Rohade,

I could not resist trying the same Chopin nocturne with my piano-based samples (Vienna Imperial), just to compare the sound. [only first 26 bars]

The play is not as interesting and personal as yours. Make this piece in real time would be well above my piano skills! I was inspired in part by the version of C. Arrau.

The Vienna Imperial is a true giant (over 100 velocities and 1200 samples by note). As the Boesendorfer real piano, tone is very special. Looks like he inherited some colors of his ancestors, the 19th century pianoforte. It can be a bit rustic and some folks will not like this. In addition, the unison is sometimes surprisingly loose. But it also has great qualities. He shared with his brother in real life, a very characteristic singing tone, gorgeous basses, rich resonnances, etc. And the Vienna Library team did a wonderful job in capturing all this.

I choose two of the three microphone positions available:

Player version is here: https://www.box.com/s/td4dj9u72jm3lm65pv34
Distant version (Audience) is here: https://www.box.com/s/mnshrucozc7ugmtptq1z

For this type of music, I prefer the Distant perspective. It sounds more like a CD classical recording. The energy of the hammer (their percussive aspect, especially for the low and medieum) is less aggressive.

This virtual instrument is clearly the closest to the real recordings I tried to do with my own grand piano.
I hope you'll enjoy it.

===============
Addendum: To facilitate comparison, here's a version with Pianoteq (D4 Classical BA): https://www.box.com/s/slzzrgd4euvjeu6fr6sl
I used the same midi file, but I adjusted the two pianos as possible to keep the same dynamics and the same volume. We immediately recognize the great qualities of Pianoteq (coherence, precision, etc.), but also it sounds is a little bit synthetic despite impressive improvements in recent versions.

To Experimentor: Many professionals prefer to record on software pianos rather than an acoustic one, it is less trouble and the sound they get in the software piano is what they want to achieve by micing the acoustic piano. The world of music and professional music is bigger than the classical world, sometimes piano goes in a mix, etc. And yet the are professional recordings and competitions of classical music on software pianos, it's growing up.

ClaudeBel: It's so cool you uploaded that, Vienna Imperial is hard to come by and there are not many examples of it and I have always been a bit curious about it, I like how it sounds, seems the many velocity samples pay off, I bet is fun to play.

PD: Here are some Debussy preludes and others, on the Bluethner.

http://www.pianoteq.com/listen_ecompetition

To ROHADE:

Yes,  digital piano sounds are used in the mix in popular music. Thanks for remembering, I first mentioned it in the mid80', on the album Big Generator of Yes, a Roland MKS is used. 

But in a pop-mix, the real expressive Piano is NOT WANTED! When these people use a real piano, they often
manipulate the recording in a way, that it finaly sounds like a Digital. So taking a Digital will make sense, but
this has nothing to do with piano culture: Not a piano, only the smell of the piano is wanted, it's like adding a flavour to a soup. When you want that, it's not worth the time to discuss pianoteq 3 vs 4 or synthology I vs II. Nor on wooden keyboard and advanced midi. The piano sounds for pop music are fine since decades.

I work a lot with digital and acustical pianos, and I'm still shocked, how little they have in common, apart from
their sonic surface.

And yes, there are recordings of Debussy Preludes in this forum, I mentioned it. Have you compared them with
a good acustical recording?

I don't think, that someone, who works seriously with piano music in the classical or jazz field will record with something other then the real thing.

I think the Vienna Imperial playability is close to the Pianoteq.

Fun? Well, not really for me. I have a very good concert grand at home and nothing can even approaching to it (from a player perspective). I think that hardware components are much more important here than software instruments. The way the sound is physically transfer to my ears and my body as a player is a big factor. Speakers (or headphone) can be very good but the way they produce sonic field is completely different than a real instrument. And, as I mentioning in my first post, electronic keyboards are dull (I tried a lot of models).

But things are completely different from an audience perspective. No need to preserve feeling of the piano's vibrations throw my fingers and my arms to my whole body. Just an instrument playing by someone else at a certain distance from me. Neither, concert hall, CD or virtual instruments are well suite to give us a player perspective. But this audience perspective is as important as the player's one. Sampled or modelling pianos quality can be as good and as bad as good or bad halls, pianos, speakers, recording, etc. But working to make it sounds «great» (depending on personnal taste, music style, etc.) is certainly a reasonable and realistic goal.

For a limited pianist like me, midi editing is a necessity (not just for classical repertory, but for exploring and rendering my own musical ideas too).

[Sorry for my bad english!]

What about the acoustic of a piano like that?

370i by Klavins Pianos

Or Mammoth Piano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...BgehLDM9ew

This gentleman clains to have invented a upright with qualities of a Grand piano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...d5fc6eKWqA

Pay attention to the mechanism.

http://www.dreams.org/staff/composer/mu...ch-action/

A spring brings the jack back very shortly after strike, allowing very fast repetition.

Very nice. This recording brings out the resonances of which you speak.

(Is your dog wearing turquoise contact lenses?)

Sounds really lovely. I can understand why your dog is happier than ever . (My cat has not nearly such fashionable eyes, so if you take a picture in the dark it can be glooomily neon-green-metallic - spoooky^^. But this Nocturne with D4, Bluethner or the U4 would calm the cat immediately, so cat and dog would be happy.)

Thanks for this great thread! A pleasure to listen to all the examples you all provide.

Is there any chance you could upload one of your recordings as .mid so that I could try it in the Pianoteq player?

I can't seem to make Pianoteq sound as pretty as all the recordings and demos are online. Perhaps it's an issue with the velocity curve? I'm using Yamaha P-35.

As a sample, I just recorded this with the D4 Daily Practice preset, do you think it sounds fine? http://d.pr/a/9gtG

I noticed D4 Classical BA sounds decent, but in general Pianoteq sounds very much like the sound is coming from inside a box. The demos sound good though. Using the "Punchy" preset in the equalizer adds clarity but the demos are supposedly using default presets.

So why is that when I use Pianoteq Stage on my Mac the sound is lacking clarity?

(Sorry to hijack the thread.)

True keys, is a bit on the low volume side, thats my fault

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7YqL19iMq0