Pianoteq 5 impressions (Page 1 of 7)

First of all, I was very pleased to find version 5 available this morning!  Installation and registration were very easy and smooth.  I'm sure it will take me a while to tweak the (expanded!) parameters -- particularly the mic settings -- to get things just right for my ears, as it did w/ version 4.5.  But I'm glad that I'm able to run both 4 and 5 simultaneously, in order to do close audio comparisons using the same MIDI files.  Which leads me to my first observation and questions (as a Pianoteq Standard user):

Observation: When I pull up my favorite FXP (a slightly tweaked version of the D4 "Dynamic Jazz 3-mic" available in the FXP Corner), it sounds notably different (and unfortunately, to my ears, less favorable) in v.5 than in v.4.5 -- the sound is a bit "buzzier" and has some higher timbre components that sound more artificial/synthetic to my ears than when I play the same file using 4.5.

Questions:

1. The default mics used in v.5 are perfect omnis.  Are those effectively the same as the one mic option that was used in 4.5? (In other words, I'm trying to eliminate changes in the microphone options as the source of the sound difference.)

2. If the answer to 1 is "yes," then is the clear difference I'm hearing the result of the new soundboard and string models?  (In other words, is the D4 in v.5 basically a newly modeled -- and therefore different -- instrument than the D4 in v.4.5?)

3. If the answer to 2 is "yes," then is the only way to maintain my access to my favorite D4 FXP instrument to keep version 4.5 on my system?

Many, many thanks, Modartt!  I look forward to putting v.5 more fully through its paces.  :-D

An fxp produces a fixed modification of a given instrument. A modification that sounds good on a particular instrument may sound good or bad on another instrument. As the D4 has been significantly changed, some adjustments of your fxp may be required to fit the new model.

Yes.

Yes.

Of course nothing comes closer to the D4 from Pianoteq 4 than this D4 version 4 itself. But I suggest you give a try to the new D4 and its many presets. My personal (very biased) opinion is that it is much improved and that after a while one does not want to go back to the old version.

EDIT: just saw after posting that ED already answered, this is because his answers are much shorter

Thank you for the prompt answers!

So would the architecture of v.5 have allowed you to keep the D4 instrument from v.4.5, and add the newly modeled version as a "D5" instrument option (or some other name denoting the "significantly changed" model)?

(And just so you know: I didn't start doing side-by-side audio comparisons to look for "problems." I only did that after playing one of my MIDI files using the new D4, and noticing that it sounded notably different and less satisfying than in v.4.5.  Perhaps I should post the actual FXP tonight for folks' comparison.  Other than missing the old D4 (as modified by my custom FXP) I greatly welcome the other improvements to v.5, and will of course keep trying it out!)

Please check your velocity curve if it's same.
It has big impact on sound.

Edit: Reply to Dugaduga.

" the sound is a bit "buzzier" and has some higher timbre components that sound more artificial/synthetic to my ears than when I play the same file using 4.5 "

I have to say i agree. something does not sound pleasant there. the only way i have found to tame it, is to set the mallet bounce initial delay to minimum, and the the delay loss to maximum ( with the bluthner model ) but its still there. its a shame as the sustained notes with the pedal down are much richer and improved over 4.5.

The kremsegg collection 1 and 2 are for salle.

Not sure if many people would buy historical pianos for this price. It's not that it desserves less, but people do not use to give such value for historical pianos.

They created 8 new good historical models, invested a lot of time and money, and it's fair to charge.

The Bechstein 1899 fits very well to blues and have a very natural sound.
Check the mp3:  https://www.pianoteq.com/kremsegg2

Yes, mic positioning (and especially mic type, as of v5!) can impart a lot of changes to the sound - sometimes for the worse, other times for the better!

I found that when I had a play of the Standard demo. I just have a feeling that mic position alone won't be able to make the KIVir sound pleasant to my ears, there's a nasty rattling, thin, tinny quality to it. However, it won't matter as long as the Kremsegg Bechstein sounds good, I just want one nice-sounding Bechstein

I'm sorry you find it confusing, but my posts couldn't have been clearer:
– I don't like the sound of the KIVir Bechstein; it might improve with mic positioning but I suspect not
– I really want a nice Bechstein, so will be listening to the Kremsegg 2 demos with interest. If the Bechstein sounds good I'll definitely be buying.

Unfortunately I've heard nothing yet as I'm still at work, ahem, working

Just few words after few hours of playing: "Pianoteq 5 is great".

Im enjoying V5, K2 is very nice and others have some nice subtle changes.

Ive been demoing the Kremsegg (1&2), its a pity about the price 49 eur each is quite high, though undoubtedly alot of work has gone into them, and the Pleyel, Erard and Bechstein are very different (better) to the KiVIR versions.

I really like the new Bechstein, and think Kremsegg 2 is (for me) the better of the two packs, but i think its down to what you are looking for.
(not that Ive ever played a Bechstein, so can't say how accurate it is, just its nice)

perhaps Pianoteq will do us a historical pianos bundle

Really good dynamics! Thanks for your improvisation!

And listen Bluthner - it's incredible: chords are very natural, treble range is so neat and elegant. Just pleasure.
(Though I noticed CPU usage increased, but it is justified for this sound).
Good job, Modartt!

Version 5 Pro is sounding great so far!  I had to refresh my browser a couple times in order to get the download to work in my user area...I'm sure the Pianoteq website is a little busy right now. 

My first impressions... everything's a lot brighter. I'm sure I'll get used to it and overall it's probably a good thing, but it was a bit of a shock and I'm still not accustomed to it. I suspect I need to have another go at my velocity curve, or just play for longer so that my playing adjusts to the increased brightness (I think I need to learn a bit more subtlety).

As others have mentioned, the mids seem a bit clearer and the bottom end seems better defined.

The Kremsegg Bechstein is beautiful. The higher registers aren't totally to my liking, but it's far, far superior to the KiViR Bech. Having played the KIViR one again, it seems really distant, even with no reverb or delay whatsoever. It's very percussive with a nasty rattle to it, it almost sounds as though it's in need of restringing! The Kremsegg one, on the other hand, is still a bit percussive but is present and warm and with none of the shrillness of the KIViR.

Comparing K2 with identically named K1 patches, there's a noticeable spatial difference, presumably due to the newer mic modelling. The K2 sounds superior. How much I like it depends on what I'm playing and the preset. I don't think I'll find it a good all-rounder, but when I like it, it's very nice. It probably just needs different mic placement to get the best out of it (and I'm only on Stage so can't play with that at the moment). I think it will probably grow on me. The K1, like the KIViRs sounds a bit distant, or roomy or boxy (even with no delay/reverb), in comparison with K2.

Oh yes, the K2 bass/piano split preset is fun! Aha, just noticed one for D4 as well but that doesn't seem to do anything (i.e. the bottom end is just piano).

Hmm, onwards to the other Kremsegg demos and the YC5...

ETA: I think the preset handling is far superior. It might take an extra click or two through the submenus, but it's much easier to take in the information and find the right preset because it's laid out more logically. And scrolling around the preset screen in PT4 used to be a bit of a pain.

OK this is just an initial impression, but so far I'm not that impressed.  Yes it's clearer, and compared to 4.5 more realistic in some ways.  But there are two big problems:

- the metallic/buzzing sound others have mentioned.  Especially noticable on mid-to-high notes @ higher velocities.  Instead of the clear, more crystal-like purity, we've now got a really nasty unmusical metallic sizzle.  Seems to be part of the new engine as I hear it on all models I've tried so far (D4, Bluethner, K2).  I really think Modartt should rework this, as it ruins the purity and delicacy of the upper frequencies.

- the sound does have more 'body', sounds warmer and a bit more organic, yes.  However it's still a very static effect to my ears, like rigid convolution.  The body/woodieness simply doesn't gel and mingle, it's strangely clinical.  (as is the upper frequency metallicness above).  I was hoping to see something more alive-sounding, maybe with some randomness, at least with some non-linear interplay.

(Of course I don't know how the current soundboard model actually works, but I believe the older engine at least used convolution?  But it still sounds static, not like a living breathing piano.)

Btw it's a shame I wasn't eventually invited to the beta tests, despite being promised several times.  I was in the PT4 beta and contributed a few important things that got adopted, so I would have been able to give this feedback earlier.

Congratulations to Modartt, I upgraded today. Pianoteq V5 just sounded fabulous to me.  The bass is richer and deeper than before. I really like the new historical pianos. Thank you Modartt.

Anything but dry and muffled here. A new breath of life in every model, the K and D now shine, and the Bluethner radiates warmth yet power like never before. I have students with talented young ears and all who have played P5 today are blown away... kids huh

I hope against hope the maker will allow Modartt to sample White Room instruments 46, 47, or 48, as they have 102 notes (no "filling in" notes below F0), and, as a bonus, implement his dream of a 108 note compass.

Of course I am talking about what sounds better to ME.

Note that I am ONLY referring to the tone - not the playability aspects. I understand and accept that Pianoteq excels in that area, and that's great.

Greg.

You're down under eh skip... been to Stuart and Sons? I would leave Toronto to play one in the maternity ward

C'mpn Greg if you can play a note that sounds good to you, you're a good enough player. You're then a player of note and are we not all what pours our fingers? Some notes vanish some linger, some we banish, some beckon a singer... whatever works its all good skip

I purchased 4.5 Stage several months ago, and I found myself playing my Ivory II American Steinway D instead. Pianoteq just didn't sound quite natural to me.

Version 5 sounds really good. The D4 and K2 are in the league of Ivory II for sound quality, and it's more responsive to my touch. I don't hear the metallic sound at the treble range that was mentioned in this thread.

I'm very happy with the upgrade. I need to play more to formulate a better opinion. I need to make a visit to the Steinway store to compare better. But this is a piano that a musician can really dig into and get lost in.

Bravo!

2nd impressions.

I'm using cheap $25 computer speakers.  V4.5 at max volume would cause quite a bit of distortion.  V5's clearer sound lets me bump volume up to 100% on the D4.

The K2 will be good practice to get better control.  The D4 is more forgiving of mistakes (e.g. pressing too hard or too soft) but for the K2, those mistakes really stand out.

Chortle.  (I'm looking forward to the day when I'm stone deaf, because then Pianoteq will definitely sound the same as my sample libraries!)

Greg.