I know we been there already but after lots of analyzing and comparing I'm now 100% convinced that's the only thing pianoteq is still missing. For me it's curently unusable for any serious work.
Devs please an option to mix some wood in the attack...PLEASE
String modelling is nicely done but it just sound very unnatural without the wood.
Maybe a decent IR or something...
For me it's curently unusable for any serious work.
You've got to be kidding me. It's extremely usable for any kind of serious work.
Here you are
hahahahaha nice one jarosujo
axembler wrote:For me it's curently unusable for any serious work.
You've got to be kidding me. It's extremely usable for any kind of serious work.
Extremely? C'mon man. Noticed you are a big fan but have you ever played a real one?
With 20 years of exp think I know what I'm talking about. Great that it's working for you, different taste, I respect that but it doesn't work for me. No matter what patch or production trick I used it still sounds fake >>to my ears<<
Attack is just not there...yet.
Piano is much more than just a string emu. The equation is not yet finished.
I'm here to help and contribute so please don't feel offended.
Of course, I played a real piano since I was 8 years old or so. Sure, Pianoteq isn't 100% perfect, but it's very very close, and to me attack is very good and usable. Nobody complained on piano sound that came from Pianoteq whenever I used it, that should say something...
Guess I'm expecting too much but it's very close indeed.
Will see what the next version brings.
Increasing hammer noise works pretty well for me to get more wood. Or I misunderstand what you mean.
I would also like to know what exactly wooden attack means. You want more realistic attack phase (when hammer strikes strings) of the sound ?
Yes, more realistic attack phase. For example...compare it with the diamod module, classic patch in true pianos. Not perfect of course but close enough. I just can't achieve similar with the PT. TP attack sounds much fuller and natural (woodier if you want) >>to my ears<<
Of course some of you will disagree but that's just my taste and I'd be extra happy if someone can match those 2 and share a patch.
I've fallen in love with the 1st Fender Rhodes patch because the attack sounds 'woody' at the top end. To me, it gives expression and colour to the sound. I sold my real Fender a couple of years ago so I can't compare but realism is not the issue for me. The sound is very playable. So what I'm saying is, I agree, it would be nice to have control over that aspect of the classic piano sounds even though are already succulent.
Axembler I'm not sure if I understand you.
Do you want some wood recoreded sounds to be inseted together with the modelled sound, similar to the way the noise sound (samples) are inserted?
Have you find the latest pianoteq models, Bluthner and U4, more realistic in terms of attack compared to older models ?
New versions do sound a bit better but the attack is still too washy for my taste no matter what model I try. It doesn't have that impact like true pianos I mentioned in the post above. Yeah, maybe mixing some real piano body samples would help...don't know but yes that was my suggestion.
Could you post a sample of TP?
You can find the demo here http://www.truepianos.com/downloads.php
But in my opinion TP can't compete against pianoteq ...
Regards
Yes, I can agree: Pianoteq is very good, but is still not perfect in case of hammer-string interactions. Though the situation became much better after 4.5 version!
There are some little measures that can slightly help in tuning pianoteq for more realistic hammer hit and the woodness of the sound:
1. increasing hammer noise up to 1.20-1.40
2. increasing the volume of first tone in spectrum profile for few db (1-3), and decreasing of 7th and 8th.
For me another need for pianoteq is the "speed of sound fading setting" or something like this. Because, when you play pianoteq with headphones, you hear, that sound is too vocal. I.e. for me it has very loud "tail". Loudspeakers fix it, probably because of the natural atmospere and distance effect, but in headphones it creates very loud and obvious "background" on a pedal (may be it is realistic for playing in a small room, but not for recording - as mics usually cut/disperse this long "tail"). Decreasing impendance or increasing the Direct Sound Duration makes the sound less "vocal", but it strongly influences the timbre (and it's bad), and slightly - the loudness of string vibrations (that is needed). I tried "q factor" and cutoff but couldn't manage the satisfying results. May be one of the most appropriate desicions, in this case, that i've tried, was to play with one micro in output settings. But it simultaneously influences the quality of the timbre, making the sound poor.
This pianoteq characteristic is not critical, of course. But it would be better to have some opportunities to control it
Briefly the most required changes in future models for me are:
- more woody sound (оr setting for this parameter). Especially strong and woody ff and fff (as Emil Gilels, for example, had)
- better interaction of string-hammer (the moment of the hit is not realistic enough, in my opinion)
- setting for the loudness of sound tail (or the speed of fading). In classical recordings sound is obviously shorter, it decays quickly
But without any doubts, i love pianoteq! And truepianos, Ivory and etc. are far behind from it, when we speak about intonation and flexibility, the realism of realtime playing.
With best regards!
About the decay of sound, especially on higher notes, i too wish that was something we could control directly. The Blüthner model has a much shorter "tail" on the high notes, but i don't have the pro version of pianoteq, which would be needed to make more fine adjustments, than simply changing the soundboard impedance globally.
...Briefly the most required changes in future models for me are:
- more woody sound (оr setting for this parameter). Especially strong and woody ff and fff (as Emil Gilels, for example, had)
- better interaction of string-hammer (the moment of the hit is not realistic enough, in my opinion)
- setting for the loudness of sound tail (or the speed of fading). In classical recordings sound is obviously shorter, it decays quicklyBut without any doubts, i love pianoteq! And truepianos, Ivory and etc. are far behind from it, when we speak about intonation and flexibility, the realism of realtime playing.
With best regards!
Well wrtitten, great I'm not the only one.
So developers there you go...something to think about
HP plans to create until 2017 a 256 core ship.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/hp-corona/
If true, that will allow to modelled technology to compute many more or more detailled characteristics.
I'm pretty sure that kind of chip wouldn't be available to us mortals for quite some time to come.
Uhhnnn...
I supose you refer about this be the kind of ultra expensive thing, to be used only by huge companies, like silicone super computers used by ILM in the 90's.
I'm pretty sure that kind of chip wouldn't be available to us mortals for quite some time to come.
Yep, something like that.
Here, more woodness:
http://awebic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/1.png
;-)
I too hope the attack will be improved in the next version, I also find it is too 'washy' and not very realistic (and no parameter tweaking has solved this). The decay can also be improved.
Thinking about this subject makes me go back to basics--to model the attack, each element of the attack needs to be broken out into a separate contribution? In other words. instead of focusing on the sound first, we need to focus on the elements that contribute to it?
Some of these we can already control. The strike distance we can control with velocity response. (EDIT: OR maybe not. The delay might be set note by note?) The hammer hardness with hammer hardness.
That leaves what? The hammer mass? The shank weight? The shake weight in proportion to the hammer weight or density? The shank length? All of these things contribute to the force applied and to how long the felt touches the strings. I do not know enough about the subtle interaction of the action parts. But I suspect that we may need to slow down and look at each, instead of focusing on just applying an eq to the hammer. But that would be good, too: each mic on a real sound board can have its own set of EQ knobs.
Regardless, and I hate to say it, I'm slowly coming around to the old argument for letting the user control the velocity response note by note. I know, I know. Shouldn't be needed. But real pianos do have flaws, including bent shanks, that change the velocity to loudness response note by note. And I can imagine that a bent shank might straighten out at high speeds to strike the unisons at a different angle from the angle it strikes them on soft strikes, when the bentness might be maintained.
Much of this comes from what I mentioned in another thread--I recently bought a 1905 Chickering, and the many irregularities in it are often lovely. Delight in disorder? Yes, and the attack is both precise and forceful, using slightly smaller, lower mass hammers.
Let's keep talking about the attack.
axembler
If you have the pro version you can get more of an attack if you edit:
1. Voicing / Spectrum profile / Note edit.
2. Plot a few yellow points in the keyboard section at the bottom. Then on the yellow line create say five/six points in a convex shape (the end points being taller than the middle ones). This gives a flatter sound and more of an attack. A concave shape gives a rounder sound.
3. You can tweak the Equ3 in the effects to amplify the behaviour of the sound.
Here, more woodness:
http://awebic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/1.png
;-)
I would prefer an iron bark version :-)
