... and Pianoteq 5.5.0 was released today. Keen to read changes from 5.4.2 before upgrading. Anyone have a link to the change log?
PS. the model B needs Ptq v5.5 - installing now...
Very exciting news!
Played an hour with Model B and must say, that i'm very impressed! Treble notes are such a delight to play!.. Though can't say something more yet, but it seems to be another great job from Modartt!
It's my new favourite (honeymoon phase :-D ). Worth upgrading to 5.5 just so you can try it out.
Got the news about the B this morning. Did the upgrade and demo. I loved it and bought it. Thank you Modartt!
Bill
Another purchase here - Really enjoying Model B - and it is nice to have a smaller piano in the collection.
Based on 5 minutes of play, in the "Stage" version, the Steinway B has more "string resonance" than any of the other presets.
. . . I like it!
It may replace the Bluthner as my favorite (digital) piano.
. Charles
I'm not familiar with the real Model B. I purchased it too, and I am very pleased. The string resonance in the middle to upper ranges is absolutely angelic. The bass notes don't sound as commanding as the other Pianoteq acoustics, however.
Do any of you audiophiles notice improvements in the other pianos with this upgrade? Probably not, I noticed that Modart didn't mention any changes to this version other than the introduction of the Model B.
I think this is my new favorite piano. As a piano beginner, this model seems so much more manageable than the Blüthner. And I have not been won over by D4. But this Steinway B is fun! and it sounds great. Thank you Modartt.
After 3,5 hours of playing, have some conclusions. I guess, this is the most realistic Pianoteq virtual piano at the moment! Very refined.
This Model B sounds like it must sound - as a semi-concert grand. Not a full-concert. It has very certain character - a little bit 'chamber'. Not good enough for some big and powerfull things like Piano Concertos. I tried Saint-Saens 2 Piano Concerto and - no, it sounds not powerfull and rich enough for such things (concert Bluthner is more appropriate).
But it is so good for small solo things!.. Just perfect. Listening now to Tchaikovsky 'Autumn song' (recorded it today with PT and Model B demo) and, oh... I can't believe my ears. Its pp-mf range is very lovely. Resonances are close to a real thing - smooth and rich, and high notes are also "true". My best regards to Modartt team!
Do any of you audiophiles notice improvements in the other pianos with this upgrade? Probably not, I noticed that Modart didn't mention any changes to this version other than the introduction of the Model B.
This is what is posted on the website:
Change history
Version 5
5.5.0 (2016/01/27)
New instrument: the Model B Grand Piano.
5.4.2 (2015/10/03)
Fixed incorrect plugin window size when the graphical keyboard was hidden.
Fixed issue with some reverb impulses that could not be loaded.
5.4.1 (2015/10/02)
Fixed crash with the Pianet when some combination of parameters is used.
Fixed GUI being wrongly displaced by the random button.
Modartt loves to make nice surprises:
Good job boys.
The only digital Steinway-B I remamber was old one that came with EWQL Symphonic Orchestra Silver version. It was very loud for FF&FFF in treble, and was quite dark in upper range, in general not something that appeared ok for many reasons. The pianoteq version makes more sense.
Well.. you've gone and done it again!....
Lovely (immediate purchase here )
Good job boys.
It ain't all boys. As I understand, the hard-maths/science-brains of the operation are two "boys" (Pr Guillaume & Dr Pommier) and one "girl": mathematician Dr Juliette Chabassier, who did her PhD thesis on mathematically modelling the piano. She also has a number of publications on the topic in leading research journals. Those interested in the science and maths behind Pianoteq should check them out (it helps if you've done some uni level maths, but even if you haven't you'll get something out of them). These papers give a good overview:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/jo.../1.4809649
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di...3X13001362
(Free full-text access at a university near you. Or you can try search for free preprint versions online. Or you could nicely ask Dr Chabassier for a copy.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dTZ8iS_2Q
Has Pianoteq moved into physical models?
What a kurious (sic) coincidence...
Wonder who had the first try at the name...
I've tried it with different presets and still like the bluthner better
What a kurious (sic) coincidence...
Wonder who had the first try at the name...
To answer my own question pianotek has the precedence, being established in 1979 according to the website.
Ohh, you are right, and Juliette of course. :-)
Since they got her into the team, like extra hand to help a lot to refine the core sound engine, pianoteq got a good new boosting.
http://www.c-yourmag.net/post/2015-03-1...il-chanter
It's quite rare women likes to get deep into digital piano world, and also rare women likes to get into engineering (of algorithms) in digital world. So Juliette is a kind of miracle.
Or maybe she is not from Earth, like Supergirl.
Beto-Music wrote:Good job boys.
It ain't all boys. As I understand, the hard-maths/science-brains of the operation are two "boys" (Pr Guillaume & Dr Pommier) and one "girl": mathematician Dr Juliette Chabassier, who did her PhD thesis on mathematically modelling the piano. She also has a number of publications on the topic in leading research journals. Those interested in the science and maths behind Pianoteq should check them out (it helps if you've done some uni level maths, but even if you haven't you'll get something out of them). These papers give a good overview:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/jo.../1.4809649
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di...3X13001362(Free full-text access at a university near you. Or you can try search for free preprint versions online. Or you could nicely ask Dr Chabassier for a copy.)
I've tried it with different presets and still like the bluthner better
Agreed. I'm listening on a pretty decent monitoring chain (RME Aio->Lake Peope ADDAC F446-> ADam A7x in a treated room) and prefer the D4 and Bluthner. I think because Modartt are synthesizing the piano the quality of your DA and speakers is paramount.
There is a weakness I hear in the low mids to mids on the Steinway B. Admittedly I only auditioned it for 30 mins. The high mids to highs sound great but by tweaking the unison width I can achieve a similar sound on the D4.
As an aside I bought the Ravenscroft 275 about a year ago to see if I was missing anything on sampled pianos and thought it sounded more plasticky than the Pianoteq. I was expecting to prefer the sound of the Ravenscroft and the feel of Pianoteq. In my opinion Pianoteq sounded decidedly more authentic.
I really think people need to look more at their monitoring chain rather than Pianoteq when they complain about it sounding inauthentic. I listen to mainly Classical to caveat the previous statements.
Smart AND hot! Way to go, Modartt!
Congratulations to Modartt team and to all us users with this next step! And I'm very grateful for having for the first time a wide dynamics factory preset (60 dB, Recording 3).
Modartt, you people are outstanding! I absolutely applaud your decision to make yet another piano. This is why I like Pianoteq. For the pianos. There never can be too many of them for me. Each model create gets better and better. I am amazed at what you have been able to accomplish and I appreciate your support of this wonderful product. When I hit the letter "p" in my address bar google pulls up Pianoteq. Long live pianos! Long live Pianoteq! Bravo! Bravo!
I'm a new user to Pianoteq. Trailed and purchased Steinway B piano package on day of release. It is remarkably playable with clarity and expressiveness. I particularly enjoy "intimate' and "player " presets. Little or no need for tweaking or adjustments. I love to be able to switch between D/K2/Bluthner/U4/B pianos during practice sessions- never boring anymore!!
From Pianoteq site Steinway-B page:
"The virtual grand piano Model B for Pianoteq was carefully designed to reproduce the finest sound characteristics of the Steinway B instrument that was selected by Modartt for this Project. Subtle refinements of the physical modelling were made, resulting in a noticeably clear tone and astounding dynamics."
Have they got it to sound better, clear, than the real Steinway-B piano?
Or it only refers to some improvement of the modelling algorithm ?
But the pianoteq change history do not mention upgrades in the modelling algorithms:
"Change history:
5.5.0 (2016/01/27)
New instrument: the Model B Grand Piano"
From Pianoteq site Steinway-B page:
"The virtual grand piano Model B for Pianoteq was carefully designed to reproduce the finest sound characteristics of the Steinway B instrument that was selected by Modartt for this Project. Subtle refinements of the physical modelling were made, resulting in a noticeably clear tone and astounding dynamics."
Have they got it to sound better, clear, than the real Steinway-B piano?
Or it only refers to some improvement of the modelling algorithm ?But the pianoteq change history do not mention upgrades in the modelling algorithms:
"Change history:
5.5.0 (2016/01/27)
New instrument: the Model B Grand Piano"
I think it's probably the second one. The modelling seems to be different and a little bit more aggressive on the CPU compared with the K2. Playing a few sustained notes immediatly reveals differences: the overtones are more clear and less muddy when compared with the K2. I like it so far but I still need some weeks of intense playing and tweaking before I make a final decision.
In the meanwhile, thanks a lot to Modaart for this new piano! That's what we were waiting for...
I agree, it seems to need a little more CPU.
But it sounds really good to me.
Is it me or is this new model B a little more contained on its dynamic range?
I agree, it seems to need a little more CPU.
But it sounds really good to me.
Also had the impression with the higher CPU load .... but after some quick and not really extensive comparisions (which pointed more in the direction that the load for the models is approximately the same) the question arose if version 5.5.0 eats more CPU than the previous version(s) ...
Oh, and also like the new Model B - as someone put it (in some way) - for solo playing or practicing, quite nice - maybe in the mix with other instruments the others sit better in the mix ....
Best
Here another inmediate purchase, played some patches and loved it, bravo Moddart!
Looking forward to your next releases, thanks!
If the model is more refined chances are it will need more number-crunching (CPU power). There are two basic ways to refine a model: 1) fine tune the parameters, 2) add more parameters. #1 is to a large degree up to the user in Ptq Pro, the latter is up to the creative team.
On Dr Chabassier and women in engineering and science:
How "hot" she is is irrelevant, her work alone speaks for itself. That's where anonymous peer-review works so well; she could be an asexual Martian and if the work was up to scratch she'd get the same recognition by the scientific community.
As a male scientist (theoretical/computational physicist) and having also worked as an engineer, I do find the gender imbalance in these fields uneasy, but I have no credible theory about why the imbalance exists. But my instincts tell me that social pressures and the status quo have a lot to do with it. And the history that brought it about: all male institutions that are the product of a patriarchal society; and sometimes there is a "boys' club" culture that is unwelcoming to women ...
... changes are needed but I'm too clueless to fight the system, so I mostly teach for a living (girls are better at undergrad physics btw IME), and do largely unpaid research on the side.
***
Back on topic, the Model B would be the #1 add-on instrument I'd recommend to those who can only afford the Stage version. For those into classic electric pianos as well, the R2/W1 Stage + Model B would be a nice versatile set.
I had no intention to refer to sensuality or sexuality. The first photo was just to let people see who is she, as a creative member of Modartt. The Supergirl photo was just a bit of humor, a metaphoric way to refer about her talent, also without bad intention.
As you said, her work is the point, and not her look or home planet.
I believe is the way boys and girls grow-up that differ the tastes and so splits some areas creating such diferences, like in engineering. Toys, for example, boys with miniature cars and girls with dolls... The old religious idea that women are majorly machines for reproduction.
Things needs to change since childhood, to allow a better society. Women still have much more talent to show, as the differences and stigmas get reduced. And man also needs to breakfree from many silly stigmas, that use to leads to psychologic neurosis that turn to aggressivity.
Unfortunatelly, the media don't work to help society, but to to sploit it, and most times they display women in a sexual exploitation context, and man in a Neandertal manner.
On Dr Chabassier and women in engineering and science:
How "hot" she is is irrelevant, her work alone speaks for itself. That's where anonymous peer-review works so well; she could be an asexual Martian and if the work was up to scratch she'd get the same recognition by the scientific community.
As a male scientist (theoretical/computational physicist) and having also worked as an engineer, I do find the gender imbalance in these fields uneasy, but I have no credible theory about why the imbalance exists. But my instincts tell me that social pressures and the status quo have a lot to do with it. And the history that brought it about: all male institutions that are the product of a patriarchal society; and sometimes there is a "boys' club" culture that is unwelcoming to women ...
... changes are needed but I'm too clueless to fight the system, so I mostly teach for a living (girls are better at undergrad physics btw IME), and do largely unpaid research on the side.
***
Back on topic, the Model B would be the #1 add-on instrument I'd recommend to those who can only afford the Stage version. For those into classic electric pianos as well, the R2/W1 Stage + Model B would be a nice versatile set.
This new B model no doubt has a different character than the modeled D version, but if you adjust the string length in the menu of the D version to that of a 'B'l wouldn't that give a B model as well?
I haven't tried this myself as I already have a fair amount of instruments to chose from. Not sure if I will go for this upgrade or wait for version 6.
My intention was not to spot/speculate anything about sensuality or sexuality. The first photo was just to let people see who is she, as a creative member of Modartt.
...
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. My comment about how it shouldn't matter how "hot" she is was in response to EvilDragon's post, not yours. In 20 years she'll be even smarter but less "hot". What matters is that her work is original, creative and has made an impact on the progress of science.
I especially admire Dr Chabassier's work, because my original thesis proposal said that I'd do very much the same thing as she managed to do; but it proved too difficult at the time and I ended up perusing more abstract/general ideas in the physics/maths of waves. It was 10+ years earlier and even world-top-100 supercomputers weren't up to the task then; that's my excuse anyway. Not that I'm not proud of my work, but initially I did fail to grasp the difficulty and complexity of the problem of physical modelling of acoustic instruments with anywhere near the precision required to satisfy the human ear.
My comment wasn't intended to be sexist. I'm all for more women in science, having a Master's degree in computer science myself (and actually there was quite a lot of females during my college years in the field which was usually about 99% male)!
It just... hard not to mention the obvious, you know, as a healthy heterosexual male.
Do you mind if I ask a few questions?
What is your personal guess about near future evolution of processors ? After all, we are somehow stuck on i7 for 8 years.
What do you think about a pseudo reversal approuch, like add real piano soundbopard to digital pianos, by making use of transducers, to work as a "natural speaker" ?
I especially admire Dr Chabassier's work, because my original thesis proposal said that I'd do very much the same thing as she managed to do; but it proved too difficult at the time and I ended up perusing more abstract/general ideas in the physics/maths of waves. It was 10+ years earlier and even world-top-100 supercomputers weren't up to the task then; that's my excuse anyway. Not that I'm not proud of my work, but initially I did fail to grasp the difficulty and complexity of the problem of physical modelling of acoustic instruments with anywhere near the precision required to satisfy the human ear.
What is your personal guess about near future evolution of processors ? After all, we are somehow stuck on i7 for 8 years.
We're going to have more and more cores, contrary to more and more GHz. That alone is obvious. Consequently, virtual instrument plugins should strive to implement DSP parallelization as much as possible, where it matters. Pianoteq is doing good here.
My comment wasn't intended to be sexist....
It just... hard not to mention the obvious, you know, as a healthy heterosexual male.
Yeah, sorry I did not mean to put you down, I'm sure you meant well. I do think those things too but choose not to say them because feel it inappropriate and unhelpful for making women (large or small, hot or not) feel welcome in male-dominated fields.
What is your personal guess about near future evolution of processors ? After all, we are somehow stuck on i7 for 8 years.
What do you think about a pseudo reversal approuch, like add real piano soundbopard to digital pianos, by making use of transducers, to work as a "natural speaker" ?
We have reached the Moore's law limit with regards to CPU clock speed a while ago. We've been stuck at 1-3GHz for a while. That's to do with speed of light and size of components (light travels just a foot in one cycle of a 1GHz CPU, electricity slower). This prompted the move towards multi-core/CPU architectures.
Within the next 10 or so years we'll reach the limit of transistor size: how many we can cram onto a chip of a given size. (You can't make a transistor smaller than a few dozen atoms.) There is room for improvement in efficiency, power consumption and heat produced by CPUs. If there are real breakthroughs 3D architectures might be possible (but that's unlikely).
The way it looks now is that in about 20 years, we'll hit the ceiling, and to get a more powerful computer, you'll need to get a bigger one with more CPUs. So there is another aspect of the technology to improve: optimising algorithms (software) for parallel (multi-CPU) processing. Beyond that, the most ambitious experimental technology we have in the making (maybe) is quantum computers. But it's very much in its infancy and difficult to say what will come of it.
There could be new/revived ideas, such as photon/light-based computers rather then electron/electricity based, or ones based on yet undiscovered aspects of modern physics - this is why supporting fundamental research, like e.g. CERN / LHC, is so important.
Re your second question I don't know anything about it and I'm not sure what you mean. Something like electro-acoustic pianos?? - e.g. the Rhodes with its "tuning" forks and pickups?
Enjoying my first hour with the model B, I must say it does remind me a lot of the "real" B I practiced on last summer, the woodiness, the bass...well done Modartt!
For myself, I find improvements:
- Much better sounding unison. More natural timbre changes. Very realistic shimmering overtones. No sound of a circular saw in the third.
- High range sounds incredibly natural and naturally.
- Better tone in the middle of the range
- Better acoustic environment. Instrument sounds more clearly and more closely.
- Better resonanse.
Here is an example of the B... Prelude preset.. Impromptu version of that song from the Wizard Of Oz... The B is a fun piano... I am exaggerating the dynamics so you can hear how powerful this instrument is... https://soundcloud.com/stevenolaughlin/over-the-rainbow
Here is an example of the B... Prelude preset.. Impromptu version of that song from the Wizard Of Oz... The B is a fun piano... I am exaggerating the dynamics so you can hear how powerful this instrument is... https://soundcloud.com/stevenolaughlin/over-the-rainbow
That sounds very poignant. Thanks for sharing this.
For myself, I find improvements:
- Much better sounding unison. More natural timbre changes. Very realistic shimmering overtones. No sound of a circular saw in the third.
- High range sounds incredibly natural and naturally.
- Better tone in the middle of the range
- Better acoustic environment. Instrument sounds more clearly and more closely.
- Better resonanse.
I couldn't have said it better. It is modeled better IMO. When I play this piano, there are less limitations on my inspiration. I'm getting sounds that are truly beautiful.
I heard about graphene and artifitial diamants, in future, could have better performance than silicon.
After i7 (almost 8 years ago) there is no big deal).
About piano: The idea of a real soundboard is to use transducers to vibrate it, working like a speaker for digital piano. Not a eletric acoustic piano.
http://usa.yamaha.com/news_events/piano...2_f_EN.jpg
The way it looks now is that in about 20 years, we'll hit the ceiling, and to get a more powerful computer, you'll need to get a bigger one with more CPUs. So there is another aspect of the technology to improve: optimising algorithms (software) for parallel (multi-CPU) processing. Beyond that, the most ambitious experimental technology we have in the making (maybe) is quantum computers. But it's very much in its infancy and difficult to say what will come of it.
There could be new/revived ideas, such as photon/light-based computers rather then electron/electricity based, or ones based on yet undiscovered aspects of modern physics - this is why supporting fundamental research, like e.g. CERN / LHC, is so important.
Re your second question I don't know anything about it and I'm not sure what you mean. Something like electro-acoustic pianos?? - e.g. the Rhodes with its "tuning" forks and pickups?
Yes, I Always heard that. But where is the lots of more cores that was promissed ?
Beto-Music wrote:What is your personal guess about near future evolution of processors ? After all, we are somehow stuck on i7 for 8 years.
We're going to have more and more cores, contrary to more and more GHz. That alone is obvious. Consequently, virtual instrument plugins should strive to implement DSP parallelization as much as possible, where it matters. Pianoteq is doing good here.
The B really is a nice extension of the model range!
You can even enhance clarity by seperating the right and left output channels completely. This works for all models, by the way.
Do you mind if I ask a few questions?
What is your personal guess about near future evolution of processors ? After all, we are somehow stuck on i7 for 8 years.
What do you think about a pseudo reversal approuch, like add real piano soundbopard to digital pianos, by making use of transducers, to work as a "natural speaker" ?
SteveLy wrote:I especially admire Dr Chabassier's work, because my original thesis proposal said that I'd do very much the same thing as she managed to do; but it proved too difficult at the time and I ended up perusing more abstract/general ideas in the physics/maths of waves. It was 10+ years earlier and even world-top-100 supercomputers weren't up to the task then; that's my excuse anyway. Not that I'm not proud of my work, but initially I did fail to grasp the difficulty and complexity of the problem of physical modelling of acoustic instruments with anywhere near the precision required to satisfy the human ear.
Not that you asked ME, but I regard the trend toward soundboards excited by transducers as retrograde.
It LIMITS the possibilities to what physical pianos were, i.e. ONE soundboard "character".
Pianoteq allows changing of soundboard impedance and by implication size when string length is changed.
JMAO, etc.
beakybird wrote:jazzkeys88 wrote:Here is an example of the B... Prelude preset.. Impromptu version of that song from the Wizard Of Oz... The B is a fun piano... I am exaggerating the dynamics so you can hear how powerful this instrument is... https://soundcloud.com/stevenolaughlin/over-the-rainbow
That sounds very poignant. Thanks for sharing this.
So you don't like it?
Why?
Be specific please.
"Touching, moving, sad," are synonyms for poignant. Perhaps I meant wistful. I thought it was very pretty and dreamy in a melancholy way. I actually enjoyed it.
Using some of the midi files from the piano-e-competition (http://www.piano-e-competition.com/midi_2011.asp) website, the Model B Recording 3 sounds great as is! Debussy sounds absolutely wonderful (http://www.piano-e-competition.com/midi_2006.asp)!
jazzkeys88 wrote:beakybird wrote:That sounds very poignant. Thanks for sharing this.
So you don't like it?
Why?
Be specific please."Touching, moving, sad," are synonyms for poignant. Perhaps I meant wistful. I thought it was very pretty and dreamy in a melancholy way. I actually enjoyed it.
Ahh!!
Yes I wasn't sure if you were speaking of sad playing or sad tune... lol !!
Thank you for the compliment!
Much appreciated.
Ahh!!
Yes I wasn't sure if you were speaking of sad playing or sad tune... lol !!
Thank you for the compliment!
Much appreciated.
I thought you were just generating a MIDI. It's you. You're phenomenal. I hope you're making $$ besides lessons.
The B really is a nice extension of the model range!
You can even enhance clarity by seperating the right and left output channels completely. This works for all models, by the way.
Modellingoptimist, I was just wondering if you could expand a bit on this. Is this a new feature and how is it done?
