Modartt user forum » Pianoteq user forum » Good external convolution reverb effect plugin for Pianoteq?
I'm looking for external convolution reverb effect plugin to use along with playing Pianoteq.
I prefer something that works terrific with Pianoteq and nothing more, because I don't wan't any extra expenses, because I'm going to use it with Pianoteq only and I saw convolution reverb effects plugins from 50$ to 400$, I assume the more expensive ones are for big productions...
Some very good free ones on these sites:
https://www.voxengo.com/impulses/
http://www.samplicity.com/download/
Impulses to load directly into pianoteq.
Regarding an external convolution reverb, I most heartily recommend Altiverb 7. Yes, it's expensive, but I believe that Altiverb gives the most realistic feeling the piano is in a given space.
Please note: I use Altiverb as an auxiliary track in Apple Logic Pro X, and usually blend it with any reverb contained in any given Pianoteq preset I choose to use (and/or modify). I find that blending the Altiverb sound until I can just perceive it, and then back off by a few dB gives a very pleasant sound for me. This usually equates to the Aux channel being applied between -14dB to about -10dB.
As to choices of Altiverb Impulse Responses for use with Pianoteq, I use some of the studio IR's, a plate reverb, or the Sydney Opera House IR, again blended between -14 and -10dB.
Of course, your mileage may vary. I fully expect that other users will love different third party convolution reverb vendors as well.
Cheers,
Joe
Wait a second, I only have Pianoteq Stage for now, I have to understand few things before we continue the discussion:
I just saw now that in Pianoteq Standard I can load reverb IRs into it.
I understand that means that Pianoteq Standard has convolution reverb builtin. do I understand correctly?
If so, how good Pianoteq Standard convolution reverb?
What would be better for me to do now in your opinions: upgrade to Pianoteq Standard(only for convolution reverb), or buy a dedicated convolution reverb effect plugin?
Or maybe I don't understand the reverb feature of Pianoteq Standard at all, if so please explain me, thanks in advance.
Yes, you can load IRs into Pianoteq Standard reverb unit.
I've used it to good effect by importing IRs downloaded from http://www.samplicity.com/bricasti-m7-i...responses/
I think that upgrading to Standard makes more sense than buying an expensive external reverb. You get more ways to tweak the Pianoteq sound, the ability to load FXPs from the FXP corner and of course, the reverb unit itself.
If you plan to only be playing a Pianoteq at a time there is nearly a zero sense in using a VST convolution reverb, be it a Standard or Stage version. However, for some situations, say, if you plan to mix a piano with another tracks, like voice or strings (recorded dry) then it make sense to mix them in the same virtual space using the same reverb plugin on a master or send channel. There may be another scenarios involved too. Basically speaking, you need the additional convolution reverb plugin only if you exactly know that you need it, if it make sense.
I agree with AKM, the internal reverb of Pianoteq is now so good that there doesn't seem to be much point in using anything else for solo playing. Remember that the reverb types and levels are adjustable to taste, light or heavy, as you wish. However, if you do want to experiment with external reverb, Voxengo free reverbs are a very good place to start. For some interesting IRs to import to Pianoteq, take a look at http://www.openairlib.net/
+1 for meper's suggestion to upgrade to Standard rather than buy external reverb. In Standard, you can also load Scala files (alternative tunings), which opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities.
I don't know, I don't like the reverb in Pianoteq Stage, I assume it is an algorithmic reverb, it makes the sound mushy.
I tried Pianoteq standard demo with Reverb IRs but it was too complicated to make it sound good(to set all the parameters in the right way, I'm not a pro sound designer).
I tried the demo of this convolution reverb effect plugin:
https://www.meldaproduction.com/MConvolutionMB
Found few stock presets I really like, decent price too.
I think I'll buy it.
I'll upgrade to Pianoteq Standard at some point anyway, hopefully there will be a discount in black friday.
Though I don't have a clue how to tweak the piano models and get good results, and in the FXP corner very few presets are being shared...
Very sensible to try the demos before making a decision, that's what I always do. Melda reverb looks very good, I have some of their free plugins and they are very high quality. If I needed another reverb I would certainly be tempted by this one.
Anyway, here's something you can try to change the character of the reverb in Pianoteq (I think this will work in Stage, but if not you can try it in Standard demo): open a preset which uses Medium Hall reverb (for example, YC5 Solo Recording). Change the reverb type to Large Hall, then reduce the mix to taste (I like about +3, but you may like more or less than that - do what sounds good to you, with your equipment). The mix setting is a crucial factor in getting the sort of reverb sound you want.
If you need any help with tweaking the settings, you can always post a forum request. Describe the sort of results you would like to achieve, and somebody should give you some ideas on what to adjust, and how to adjust it.
Altiverb
Altiverb
It is 500 euro no?
Out of my budget, unfortunately...
theinvisibleman wrote:Altiverb
It is 500 euro no?
Out of my budget, unfortunately...
if you have logic - Apple Space Designer is awesome
or the cheap version of Seventh Heaven
I'm on windows system...
I'm on windows system...
Windows version i believe, this is all i know on convolution reverb effect plugins
I don't know, I don't like the reverb in Pianoteq Stage, I assume it is an algorithmic reverb, it makes the sound mushy.
Pianoteq has featured a convolution reverb since version 4. As far as I know Stage is the same as Pro and Standard except for the ability to load impulse files.
in the FXP corner very few presets are being shared...
What do you mean by that? That posted FXPs only use one of the standard reverbs and not loaded impulse files?
Reverberate Core is pretty good, why not try the demo and compare it with Melda before making a decision?
theinvisibleman and dazric, I didn't know about Reverberate Core.
I certainly going to try it before getting a decision.
Thank you both very much!
hag01 wrote:I don't know, I don't like the reverb in Pianoteq Stage, I assume it is an algorithmic reverb, it makes the sound mushy.
Pianoteq has featured a convolution reverb since version 4. As far as I know Stage is the same as Pro and Standard except for the ability to load impulse files.
hag01 wrote:in the FXP corner very few presets are being shared...
What do you mean by that? That posted FXPs only use one of the standard reverbs and not loaded impulse files?
No, I mean that there are barely any FXP files there, and I'm not going to tweak the models and build my own models with Pianoteq Standard because I have zero understanding about that.
I think that Modartt should add great FXP files, that will encourage me(and hopefully many other users like me) to moveon to Standard.
In the official demos of all the models there are quite few customized models, why not release those FXPs to the public as a start?
Gilles wrote:hag01 wrote:I don't know, I don't like the reverb in Pianoteq Stage, I assume it is an algorithmic reverb, it makes the sound mushy.
Pianoteq has featured a convolution reverb since version 4. As far as I know Stage is the same as Pro and Standard except for the ability to load impulse files.
hag01 wrote:in the FXP corner very few presets are being shared...
What do you mean by that? That posted FXPs only use one of the standard reverbs and not loaded impulse files?
No, I mean that there are barely any FXP files there, and I'm not going to tweak the models and build my own models with Pianoteq Standard because I have zero understanding about that.
I think that Modartt should add great FXP files, that will encourage me(and hopefully many other users like me) to moveon to Standard.
In the official demos of all the models there are quite few customized models, why not release those FXPs to the public as a start?
Well, there are 45 files for version 6 and 228 for version 5 that are not really out of date...maybe you mean FXP's that are entirely compatible with Stage restrictions?
hag01 wrote:Gilles wrote:Pianoteq has featured a convolution reverb since version 4. As far as I know Stage is the same as Pro and Standard except for the ability to load impulse files.
What do you mean by that? That posted FXPs only use one of the standard reverbs and not loaded impulse files?
No, I mean that there are barely any FXP files there, and I'm not going to tweak the models and build my own models with Pianoteq Standard because I have zero understanding about that.
I think that Modartt should add great FXP files, that will encourage me(and hopefully many other users like me) to moveon to Standard.
In the official demos of all the models there are quite few customized models, why not release those FXPs to the public as a start?Well, there are 45 files for version 6 and 228 for version 5 that are not really out of date...maybe you mean FXP's that are entirely compatible with Stage restrictions?
Are the FXPs of Pianoteq 5 compatible with Pianoteq 6?
I'm looking for external convolution reverb effect plugin to use along with playing Pianoteq.
I prefer something that works terrific with Pianoteq and nothing more, because I don't wan't any extra expenses, because I'm going to use it with Pianoteq only and I saw convolution reverb effects plugins from 50$ to 400$, I assume the more expensive ones are for big productions...
It all depends on the musical genre, because some convolution reverb plugins do not allow you to get a realistic sound (I think this is what everyone looks for convolution).
If you play jazz or pop music, for example, any decent-quality reverb plugin that allows you to import IRs will be good (MConvolutionMB, if you like it), because the notion of realism is more or less important for these genres.
Even if it's a convolution reverb, it's not enough to apply it on your track to make it sound realistic. There are a lot of acoustic parameters that you need to understand to configure it, and most people make a lot of mistakes about it.
If you play classical music, and if you have good knowledge of room and concert hall acoustics, Waves IR1 Convolution Reverb will allow you to obtain very good results at a reasonable price (very often on sale at less than $70). It is far better than most reverb plugins, except Altiverb (which has a much higher audio quality, and more concert hall choice ... but again, you’d need solid notions of acoustics to do something coherent).
Beyond that, the Pianoteq reverb is in my opinion the best for Pianoteq, because it includes all the most important setting parameters, which is not the case for most other reverb plugins, even the best ones. In addition, it interacts very coherently with the microphones placement in Pianoteq, which will not be the case with external plugins.
On this, Modartt really did things very well.
Finally, rather than buying an external reverb plugin, I strongly recommend you to upgrade to the Standard version of Pianoteq, and explore miking possibilities and reverb settings. Both are absolutely inseparable.
I hope this will help.
I also like the Pianoteq reverb.
Third party, Pianoverb from PSP.
Are the FXPs of Pianoteq 5 compatible with Pianoteq 6?
Sure! Everything is backward compatible. When I recently reloaded my Bosendorfer290 FXP into pianoteq 6, it was originally made with version 4 and I didn't have to change anything.
Do note that since some/most models changed their sound between v5 and v6, FXPs won't sound exactly the same between those two versions either
hag01 wrote:Are the FXPs of Pianoteq 5 compatible with Pianoteq 6?
Sure! Everything is backward compatible. When I recently reloaded my Bosendorfer290 FXP into pianoteq 6, it was originally made with version 4 and I didn't have to change anything.
That's a great news!
Do note that since some/most models changed their sound between v5 and v6, FXPs won't sound exactly the same between those two versions either
Well, the stock presets changes also anyway...
Regarding preset modification, I can understand why hag01 and others feel out of their depth. In the Pianoteq manual, many of the parameters only get a brief description and an encouragement to 'experiment'. Well thanks, but many of us would prefer a more structured approach to learning. Certainly, one can learn a great deal from this forum and elsewhere on the internet, but it's all rather haphazard and you never know what information you're going to find, or where to find it. There really ought to be a technical guide or training manual specifically for Pianoteq, with chapters on mic placement, reverb, EQ, tuning, etc., etc... How about a collaborative effort, a sort of wiki-manual? There are a lot of very knowledgeable people here on the forum who could contribute.
Regarding preset modification, I can understand why hag01 and others feel out of their depth. In the Pianoteq manual, many of the parameters only get a brief description and an encouragement to 'experiment'. Well thanks, but many of us would prefer a more structured approach to learning. Certainly, one can learn a great deal from this forum and elsewhere on the internet, but it's all rather haphazard and you never know what information you're going to find, or where to find it. There really ought to be a technical guide or training manual specifically for Pianoteq, with chapters on mic placement, reverb, EQ, tuning, etc., etc... How about a collaborative effort, a sort of wiki-manual? There are a lot of very knowledgeable people here on the forum who could contribute.
I agree.
Regarding preset modification, I can understand why hag01 and others feel out of their depth.
I think this is also why Modartt has conceived several versions of Pianoteq (Stage, Standard and Pro), and it’s normal that the more you upgrade, the more knowledge you need in tuning, sound recording, acoustics, etc.
Pianoteq is an extremely advanced software, but it remains accessible to everyone, and you will sometimes need to spend a lot of time to understand and use some features, as for all professional software (Adobe CS, etc ...).
In the Pianoteq manual, many of the parameters only get a brief description and an encouragement to 'experiment'. Well thanks, but many of us would prefer a more structured approach to learning.
There really ought to be a technical guide or training manual specifically for Pianoteq, with chapters on mic placement, reverb, EQ, tuning, etc., etc...
You can find all this on our new website: http://modelling-audio-expert.com
There will soon be many more articles on recording, mixing and mastering with modeled instruments, and tutorials to learn how to use Pianoteq features.
Here are some articles that can help you if you start:
Recording piano with AB stereo microphone technique
http://modelling-audio-expert.com/recor...technique/
How to eq classical piano duo master track
http://modelling-audio-expert.com/how-t...ter-track/
Testing high-pass filter on piano with Klein & Hummel UE-100 vintage EQ
http://modelling-audio-expert.com/testi...intage-eq/
NOTE: Even if you don’t have all the audio equipments presented on our website, you can of course obtain close or similar results with those you already have.
Let me know if there are articles you would like to see on it.
Wow, that is brilliant, thanks Modelling-Audio! I think some of us have been waiting for a resource like that for a long time...
Modelling Audio Prod, I like the teaching files on your website.
With respect to my interest, establishing the most realist player-stereo-imaging possible, it seems an obvious truth to me that the best microphone setup should be one to match the position an d direction of the speakers from which I am listening. In other words, if my speakers are at keyboard level, but positioned to the left and to the right of the piano, then the microphones should be similarly placed at keyboard level and to the left and right of the piano. This would be almost like a sound-portal, with the sound going into the microphones when the piano is recorded, and then coming out of the same locations in the future from the speakers to the person's ear.
But, since the piano's sound radiates from a broad soundboard, as well as the strings and the case, I'm afraid that my recording/playing back logic doesn't work.
Can you help set my mind straight on how to see this?
Hi dklein
Here's what I can tell you about the stereo image in '' player '' and '' recording '' mode:
If you want a coherent stereo image in "player" mode, you must logically place a microphones stereo pair in ORTF configuration (spacing 17 cm, approximative distance between the two ears) in front of the keyboard, at the height of the ears in Pianoteq. Then, to transpose this stereo image into the "real" world, I think it would also make sense to place your speakers in front of you at a distance of at least 1 meter (ie, the distance between you and the middle of the soundboard). The spacing of your speakers should be between 1 and 1.50 m.
However, this is not so simple if you want a realistic stereo image. It seems impossible even with two speakers in front of you, because when you sit in front of an acoustic grand piano, the sound does '' not '' come directly to your ears, but leaves the soundboard, to the right, bounces off the walls, and then returns to your ears on both sides of the room, with a very slight delay.
In other words, I think when you use Pianoteq in player mode, with speakers in front of you, you don’t have to look for a realistic stereo image, but rather a nice stereo image to your own ears.
I think your reasoning, by wanting to place the microphones in the same place as your speakers in relation to the keyboard is very interesting, but can’t reflect the reality anyway. This is only consistent with the transposition (virtual miking / real monitoring listening) you want to do.
The only possible realism in player mode would be that Modartt build a physical grand piano with loudspeakers at the location of the soundboard, as on some Clavinova, for example.
I really hope that Modartt will do it one day, or that Yamaha will be interested in integrating Pianoteq into its high-end digital grand pianos.
Regarding the ''recording'' mode, this is totally different, since most commercial recordings place the listener sitting in the room, as if he was attending a concert, not as if he was at the pianist's place (although it sometimes happens deliberately).
This is my opinion on this subject, but it’s very interesting and I think that thanks to your reflection we will soon publish an article to illustrate the different possibilities of creating a coherent stereo image in player mode.
Thanks very much for your interest
Mickael
Modeling, thanks for your response. I am using Pianoteq via an old upright Steinway as my keyboard, with a QRS PNOscan MIDI strip to read notes, and a Stop-Bar for when I want to play via Pianoteq instead of via my acoustic Steinway. I have my speakers on either side of the piano, as the piano is against the wall. My curious interest is to be able to model the Player position so well that I should be able to sit at the piano and not know whether I am playing the real piano, or have the Stop Bar engaged so that I am playing a Pianoteq Piano.
I am not to that stage yet, but things are much better than when I started.
As far as soundboards go, I did buy some transducers to attach to the soundboard instead of playing through the external speakers, but I haven't taken on that project of attaching them yet. Certainly, if I had a Yamaha TransAcoustic piano, I could likely play Pianoteq through the soundboard on that and not know which is real and which is Pianoteq - Yamaha has done a very impressive job with their "hybrid" piano.
In addition to appropriate yet not too precise stereo imaging, there are other audio clues at work: These include not having much simulated room reverb, while making sure to have enough "case reverb" (the reverb generated by the piano's wooden case). Also there needs to be some ringing metallic resonance of the piano's harp itself, which decays separately from the soundboard's tone.
Furthermore, with respect to stereo imaging, there must be a directionality that is part related to string position, but also partly more broad with respect to soundboard radiation (just like from the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story, the stereo imaging can't be too diffuse or too precise - it has to be 'just right').
- David
Ah! dklein, I remember your configuration (https://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?id=4460)!
At the time I considered that your approach was the most realistic and the most appropriate for Pianoteq, and I tried to reproduce your configuration with my midi controller, placing my speakers so that the sound doesn’t arrive directly in my ears, but spreads first in the room.
Indeed, it gave me more the impression of playing on a grand acoustic piano than when I had the speakers in front of me, but finally, I had to abandon this configuration, because it was not convenient to make at the same time mixing, listening to music and playing the piano.
However, in your case (if your upright piano and your speakers are against the wall, as in the photos), your biggest problem might be the proximity effect, because the excess of low frequencies could thus harm to the stereo image.
Finally, I think it's very difficult to set a single way to get a perfect stereo image for Goldilocks, as it depends a lot on your setup (speaker size, location, controller type , etc.). In addition, if your upright piano is against the wall, you won’t be able to have depth in your stereo image since the speakers will be too close to you, and therefore your perception of the balance between the frequencies won’t be the same than on an acoustic grand piano. That's also why I think the best thing would be for Modartt to build a little physical piano so that there is some distance between the source (the direct sound) and the receiver (the player). Otherwise, the sound of the piano won’t have much time to mix with the natural reverb of your room, and you’ll always have this unrealistic impression, because you’ll be too close to the source.
Also note that in player mode, it is your ears that are supposed to reproduce the stereo image, not your speakers, which they are supposed to reproduce only the sound source itself. For example, if it was a violin, you would almost have to stick your speakers together. Even a single speaker would be enough.
I would also like to specify that in player mode, you should also deactivate the Pianoteq reverb so that the sound source is as clear as possible to reproduce a consistent stereo image with your configuration.
As far as soundboards go, I did buy some transducers to attach to the soundboard instead of playing through the external speakers, but I haven't taken on that project of attaching them yet.
This could be the best solution in your case.
Yamaha has done a very impressive job with their "hybrid" piano.
Yes, I know.
I'm looking for external convolution reverb effect plugin to use along with playing Pianoteq.
I prefer something that works terrific with Pianoteq and nothing more, because I don't wan't any extra expenses, because I'm going to use it with Pianoteq only and I saw convolution reverb effects plugins from 50$ to 400$, I assume the more expensive ones are for big productions...
Have you tried EastWest Spaces? It’s half off now, but I’d still prefer to get some extra Pianoteq flavors instead.
My curious interest is to be able to model the Player position so well that I should be able to sit at the piano and not know whether I am playing the real piano, or have the Stop Bar engaged so that I am playing a Pianoteq Piano.
I think it’s also important to consider that the basses of a grand piano is much more powerful than that of an upright piano.
So unless you're playing with Pianoteq's U4, it may be normal that you don’t feel the same as when your Stop Bar is disengaged.
Have you installed a subwoofer to reproduce the lower frequencies 40-50 Hz?
This helps a lot to simulate the power of a grand piano soundboard.
Good points, Modeling.
My piano is a 54", so it has decent bass, though certainly not as good as a mid-size or large piano.
As for the speakers, I added an 8" Emotiva Bas-X subwoofer, turned to the lowest cut, anf nearly at the lowest output - even that seemingly small contribution helps immensely.
I know that I am now far off the convolution reverb topic (I like using a wooden "Knock" convolution reverb file imported into Pianoteq), but I am curious if anyone on this forum uses a Yamaha TransAcoustic piano.
Just so I won't miss anything:
There are no stock presets with reverb impulses in Pianoteq Standard, correct?
You have to import an impulse and then to adjust various parameters, correct?
Because as I said, I'm not into tweaking sounds and parameters, right now I just want to add some good sounding reverb with at least few stock presets that I like and that's it. And I'm on budget right now, as I said I'll upgrade to Pianoteq Standard at some point in order to have all the advantages of it, but that will be when I won't be on budget...
Just so I won't miss anything:
There are no stock presets with reverb impulses in Pianoteq Standard, correct?
You have to import an impulse and then to adjust various parameters, correct?
If I understand your question correctly, it seems to me that there are the same presets stocks in the Stage, Standard and Pro versions:
- clean studio
- jazz studio
- dry room
- small hall
- medium hall
- etc.
In Standard and Pro versions, you can import your own impulse response files and adjust the following parameters:
- sampling
- mix
- envelope
- pre-delay
The reverb parameters are fully adjustable in Stage (I think they are anyway - somebody will set me straight on that if not). To my understanding, all of the preset reverbs in Stage, Standard and Pro are based on impulses, but I think perhaps they are artificially created (again, somebody will correct me if I'm wrong). Only Standard and Pro have the ability to import 3rd-party impulses, giving you an even greater range of reverb types. Have you tried opening up the Effects section in Stage, to see if you can adjust the reverb type and level?
Rather than rely on memory to discuss features available in Stage, I installed a demo version to check. And yes, I can confirm that you have quite a lot of reverb parameters to adjust (e.g., mix, duration, room size...).
It's well worth taking a few minutes to have a go at modifying the reverb to your taste, and it doesn't have to be complicated. Don't worry about any of the parameters except 'mix' and the type of reverb (Large Hall, Small Hall, etc.). For me, many of the presets have a little more reverb than I would like, so I reduce the mix level. It's said that many people over-use reverb, but you will be adjusting it to your personal taste, so increase it if you like. Also, try changing the type of reverb and then reduce/increase the mix. Save any presets that you like, then come back to them later and do any fine adjustments if you need to. When you have some confidence in adjusting the mix level, you might also like to try the 'tone' control.
Rather than rely on memory to discuss features available in Stage, I installed a demo version to check. And yes, I can confirm that you have quite a lot of reverb parameters to adjust (e.g., mix, duration, room size...).
It's well worth taking a few minutes to have a go at modifying the reverb to your taste, and it doesn't have to be complicated. Don't worry about any of the parameters except 'mix' and the type of reverb (Large Hall, Small Hall, etc.). For me, many of the presets have a little more reverb than I would like, so I reduce the mix level. It's said that many people over-use reverb, but you will be adjusting it to your personal taste, so increase it if you like. Also, try changing the type of reverb and then reduce/increase the mix. Save any presets that you like, then come back to them later and do any fine adjustments if you need to. When you have some confidence in adjusting the mix level, you might also like to try the 'tone' control.
Be careful, it's not that easy, because using a convolution reverb is much more complex than most people think if you want a realistic sound with Pianoteq.
Of course, you can get very creative and satisfying results to your ears by simply using the mix to adjust the ratio between direct and reverbered sound (dry and wet), but this will have absolutely nothing realistic.
In the '' real '' world, you don’t have a mix cursor to reduce or add reverb, this is impossible. If you want less reverb, you have no choice but to change recording venue, type of microphones and their placement, or make an appropriate balance between the different microphones, nothing else. This is also the interest of Pianoteq compared to other software, and it requires good knowledge of sound recording and concert hall acoustics.
On the contrary, if you want to use the Pianoteq reverb correctly, I recommend you never to use the mix, but rather to be interested in understanding the other parameters (room size, rt, pre-delay, tail / er ...) in exploring the positioning of microphones. Mic delay setting is also very important when using the reverb.
Once again, it all depends on the musical genre requirements and the sound you are looking for.
Ah well, of course, if you're aiming for realism (rather than 'sounds good to me'), then I agree that it's very complicated indeed. But mic positioning is not even an option in Stage. Also, a lot surely depends on whether you're setting up the sound for recording or playing live.
P.S. I don't want to appear as if I'm dismissing Modelling Audio Prod's suggestions at all. Personally, I'm very interested in learning about mic placements and their relationship with reverb, so I will be studying the tutorials on their website. But for somebody who may not be overly concerned with realism, doesn't have the advanced features of Stage/Pro, and just wants it to 'sound good', the mix setting may be enough as a 'quick fix'.
Also, a lot surely depends on whether you're setting up the sound for recording or playing live.
Personally, I don't use reverb when I play live, but of course you can, and in that case there aren't really any rules anymore.
Personally, I don't use reverb when I play live, but of course you can, and in that case there aren't really any rules anymore.
OK, I think we may have been at cross purposes then. I use the mix setting to create a very light reverb that sounds good in the room I'm playing in.
Modelling Audio Prod wrote:Personally, I don't use reverb when I play live, but of course you can, and in that case there aren't really any rules anymore.
OK, I think we may have been at cross purposes then. I use the mix setting to create a very light reverb that sounds good in the room I'm playing in.
Yes, it always depends on what everyone is looking for.
I only suppose that most Pianoteq users are looking for the most realistic configuration possible.
But indeed, beyond realism, the only truth is that of your ears
I only suppose that most Pianoteq users are looking for the most realistic configuration possible.
I believe most Pianoteq users are looking for what sounds good (or, what they perceive as realistic), as opposed to true realism.
I don't use reverb when I play live
personally, i find that a touch of judiciously-chosen reverb to simulate case resonance (which does not seem to be something that's otherwise included in the model... but those that actually know please correct me if i'm mistaken here) adds an appreciable sense of presence when playing live and so heightens the perceived "realism" of the model qua instrument-in-the-room... other tricks like coordinating virtual mic placement with upward-pointed monitors etc also go a long way toward enhancing the sense of presence (not to mention Dave's whole bit now with transducers!)...
cheers,
dj
I believe most Pianoteq users are looking for what sounds good (or, what they perceive as realistic), as opposed to true realism.
Good point. Anyway, what does a piano sound like? What does a dog look like? What does cheese taste like? It all depends...
Modelling Audio Prod wrote:I only suppose that most Pianoteq users are looking for the most realistic configuration possible.
I believe most Pianoteq users are looking for what sounds good (or, what they perceive as realistic), as opposed to true realism.
Realism always sounds good.
In other words, you can’t configure a reverb that sounds bad with realistic settings, unless your ears don’t hear the difference.
Which means finally that most Pianoteq users (or many users, if you prefer ...) are looking for realism.
That said, you can definitely do something that sounds great with creative settings. It depends on the context and your personal tastes.