electric pianos seem like a good addition to increase the range of instruments, but people here don't seem to use them that much.
why is that? what are your thoughts in the electric pianos?
i am tempted to get them, but when i try them in demo mode, i find myself scrolling through the presets without ever getting stuck on the one that sounds 'just right', whatever that means.
I've found the Pianoteq Rhodes piano models (Vintage Tines MK1 and MK2) to be excellent. I suggest you don't judge them based only on the presets provided...They are only examples of what can be created. More important, they can be the starting points for pretty much whatever Rhodes sound you are seeking.
I've owned and played many different real and sampled Rhodes and Wurlitzer pianos. It's important to keep in mind that each individual real vintage instrument is different...sounds different and feels different to play. The originals were not manufactured, tuned and regulated in a particularly uniform fashion, so each was unique, even when brand new. There was a cottage industry of modifying and customizing their sounds and performance. Each of the often-expensive sample libraries now available of vintage Rhodes or Wurlis are based on only one or a few particular instances of those pianos, with the sounds only of that piano. The same goes for the Rhodes and Wurli sounds that are baked into various digital pianos.
In contrast, the Pianoteq physical models are so adjustable that you can dial in pretty much any sampled or real Rhodes that you hear on a recording or sample library. I'm the first to admit that there are some beautiful Rhodes sample libraries out there. However, it's honestly not that much work to recreate their sounds as a Pianoteq preset. What will be very different, in my experience, is that playing Pianoteq will feel more dynamic and real than playing a sample library. This feel doesn't matter when just listening and comparing sounds in a recording, but it really affects you as a player.
Anyway, sorry to go on at length about this, but I think the Pianoteq Rhodes models have been under-appreciated, and that they are actually a player's dream. I'd like Pianoteq to improve the basic physical model for Wurlitzer 200a (Vintage Reeds), to make the core sound a little cleaner, like my own Wurli at home, but I think VT2 in particular is an outstanding platform for building Rhodes sounds.
I've found the Pianoteq Rhodes piano models (Vintage Tines MK1 and MK2) to be excellent. I suggest you don't judge them based only on the presets provided...They are only examples of what can be created. More important, they can be the starting points for pretty much whatever Rhodes sound you are seeking.
I've owned and played many different real and sampled Rhodes and Wurlitzer pianos. It's important to keep in mind that each individual real vintage instrument is different...sounds different and feels different to play. The originals were not manufactured, tuned and regulated in a particularly uniform fashion, so each was unique, even when brand new. There was a cottage industry of modifying and customizing their sounds and performance. Each of the often-expensive sample libraries now available of vintage Rhodes or Wurlis are based on only one or a few particular instances of those pianos, with the sounds only of that piano. The same goes for the Rhodes and Wurli sounds that are baked into various digital pianos.
In contrast, the Pianoteq physical models are so adjustable that you can dial in pretty much any sampled or real Rhodes that you hear on a recording or sample library. I'm the first to admit that there are some beautiful Rhodes sample libraries out there. However, it's honestly not that much work to recreate their sounds as a Pianoteq preset. What will be very different, in my experience, is that playing Pianoteq will feel more dynamic and real than playing a sample library. This feel doesn't matter when just listening and comparing sounds in a recording, but it really affects you as a player.
Anyway, sorry to go on at length about this, but I think the Pianoteq Rhodes models have been under-appreciated, and that they are actually a player's dream. I'd like Pianoteq to improve the basic physical model for Wurlitzer 200a (Vintage Reeds), to make the core sound a little cleaner, like my own Wurli at home, but I think VT2 in particular is an outstanding platform for building Rhodes sounds.
good to hear!
do you know if there are any (good) presets available for download somewhere?
I would just like to add that some re-amping (real or via IR) recently gave me some very interesting results. It was a jazz recording involving two excellent pianists, one on a real Steinway B and the other on an electric piano (Rhodes or Wurli alternatively) from PTQ. A great experience.
If and when the record is released, I'll write about it here ;-)
i like the EPs a lot, including the Hohner pack. those are EPs i've never encountered in real life, so it's great to get to try them. there are many FXPs in FXP corner for the EPs. my favorites are the experimental presets built by Piet de Ridder. i actually don't know if they're in FXP corner or not, i think i got them from as a share from an old post in this forum. but they're more about showing the possibilities of the engine, so they're a bit out there. very fun though
one reason i think EPs don't get talked about much is that i think a lot of people on here are using Pianoteq as a solo instrument (at least it feels that way to me in the discussions), so there's a lot of conversation about the acoustic instruments. EPs seem to be underutilized in solo performances, which is a shame. but i could be way off base, others may have a better explanation.
ok, ok, I bought it... ;-)
Can someone point me to the presets that are the 'neutral' presets for each instrument?
Or in other words, how can i set the raw sound of the mki, mkii, and reeds w1, without any added fx or modification or style?
(it might just be about switching all effects and eq and reverb off?)
thanks
i like the EPs a lot, including the Hohner pack.
I agree with budo. I have used both. Here a short clip from my version of ”Swing low sweet chariot”, where I’m playing with Organteq and have a solo with ”Hohner Planet T Soft Pan Tremolo”. "Edited" a bit. I like the sound.
https://forum.modartt.com/uploads.php?f...Planet.mov
Best wishes,
Stig
Can someone point me to the presets that are the 'neutral' presets for each instrument?
All those presets that contain the word "basic".
I really like the models on offer but tend to apply external FX (plugins) to those.
Now that the Rhodes is back for real in the Mk8 maybe we can see an official model, perhaps with a new or upgraded FX section?
To be honest the Pianoteq model already gets there qualitatively for me but who knows with official brand endorsement likely benefitting both companies - and further refinement of the models.
No new Wurly out there for a package though. Perhaps add the Valente, if it's not just a bit too niche?
Edit:
Valente sounding good here:
https://youtu.be/p0rp1H2znlo
I would just like to add that some re-amping (real or via IR) recently gave me some very interesting results. It was a jazz recording involving two excellent pianists, one on a real Steinway B and the other on an electric piano (Rhodes or Wurli alternatively) from PTQ. A great experience.
If and when the record is released, I'll write about it here ;-)
Thanks, a formidable idea. Would love to know more, keep us posted.
Also, re the OP, don’t forget about layering and morphing (in particular) acoustic pianos with their electric siblings in PTQ.
weightedKeys wrote:Can someone point me to the presets that are the 'neutral' presets for each instrument?
All those presets that contain the word "basic".
thanks, now that you pointed it out, it is quite obvious ;-)
I am wondering:
for the other presets, is there a list of what references they are based on?
(some are quite obvious, 'logical' referring to supertramp 'logical song', '70s fusion' referring to 'fusion jazz'(?), 'leslie' referring to 'leslie amp' etc)
think they're terrible and need a lot of work. I don't find them in anyway realistic and they're not in the same league of realism as the actual pianos.
Granted I've never played a real one and my point of reference is my old piano teachers korg sv1 ( damn that thing can sound good).
I have stage but has the person who made the presets actually listened to any Steely Dan, Ahmed Jamal, Herbie Hancock?
I want presets that can come close to some of those sounds.
think they're terrible and need a lot of work. I don't find them in anyway realistic and they're not in the same league of realism as the actual pianos.
Granted I've never played a real one and my point of reference is my old piano teachers korg sv1 ( damn that thing can sound good).
I have stage but has the person who made the presets actually listened to any Steely Dan, Ahmed Jamal, Herbie Hancock?
I want presets that can come close to some of those sounds.
Check out Philippe Guillaume's last preset for the Rhodes in the FXP Section. This was a workaround for mono EP with stereo FX.
Lots of the electric presets aren't to my taste either. I wonder if they were designed to emulate the sound in specific tracks?
However I find this with other EP VSTs too. There are presets with top to bottom clarity in there.
It's difficult - I haven't owned a real EP but as far as my understanding goes the mechanical nature and imprecision made for substantial variations between units - hence the "legendary units" in marketing like the famous Leeds unit; no relation to the 21st century made in Leeds UK units!
Lots of classic EP tracks have substantial EQ applied. Part of this is probably a workaround for the mechanical limitations of the units.
Listening to that Valente in the video link I provided the highest octaves sound noisy. Presumably much higher gain due to mechanical limitations. Of course this could also be seen as character.
Thanks will check out that preset.
Although no access to my music setup for a few weeks.
I also don't find the amp simulation very convincing, it sounds a bit digital to me and lacks any warmth maybe this affects my overall impression of the EP's
jamesb5 wrote:think they're terrible and need a lot of work. I don't find them in anyway realistic and they're not in the same league of realism as the actual pianos.
Granted I've never played a real one and my point of reference is my old piano teachers korg sv1 ( damn that thing can sound good).
I have stage but has the person who made the presets actually listened to any Steely Dan, Ahmed Jamal, Herbie Hancock?
I want presets that can come close to some of those sounds.Check out Philippe Guillaume's last preset for the Rhodes in the FXP Section. This was a workaround for mono EP with stereo FX.
Lots of the electric presets aren't to my taste either. I wonder if they were designed to emulate the sound in specific tracks?
However I find this with other EP VSTs too. There are presets with top to bottom clarity in there.
It's difficult - I haven't owned a real EP but as far as my understanding goes the mechanical nature and imprecision made for substantial variations between units - hence the "legendary units" in marketing like the famous Leeds unit; no relation to the 21st century made in Leeds UK units!Lots of classic EP tracks have substantial EQ applied. Part of this is probably a workaround for the mechanical limitations of the units.
Listening to that Valente in the video link I provided the highest octaves sound noisy. Presumably much higher gain due to mechanical limitations. Of course this could also be seen as character.
Oh I now see you said Stage. FXP import is limited in Stage version:
"[2] In PIANOTEQ Stage, preset loading is limited to parameters that are present in the interface. Presets built with PIANOTEQ PRO can be loaded in PIANOTEQ Standard without limitation."
Granted I've never played a real one and my point of reference is my old piano teachers korg sv1 ( damn that thing can sound good).
I have stage but has the person who made the presets actually listened to any Steely Dan, Ahmed Jamal, Herbie Hancock?
I want presets that can come close to some of those sounds.
yes, that put me off for some time as well. in my opinion, the existing presets are misleading, since all i wanted was to hear that signature sound i know from lots of songs, rather than presets with too much added fx overall
however, i am glad i bought the electric pianos. especially when starting out with the 'basic' presets.
i am still a beginner at keyboard/piano, but it is great fun to practice with the electric pianos
think they're terrible and need a lot of work (...)
I don’t think they’re terrible at all, absolutely not, but I do agree there is room for improvement, especially with regard to the instruments' ‘mimicking potential’. To me, the current versions of the PTQ Rhodes and Wurlitzer are more suggestive of the real instruments rather than nailing these instruments’ sounds and identity. I tend to consider them sort of distant relatives.
Now, ‘being suggestive of’ is frequently entirely satisfying as far as I’m concerned — I really do enjoy playing and working with the PTQ’s electric pianos —, but I also do believe that if Pianoteq wants to compete in the top echelon of uncanny Rhodes and Wurlitzer virtualizations, offering a sound, dynamic response and character that has listeners wondering if they’re listening to the real thing or not (which I can’t see happening all that often with the current versions), then yes, these two PTQ instruments do require some more work.
In their role as distant relatives of the originals however, I like 'em both very much. I have a similar soft spot for the AAS Lounge Lizard: no one in robust mental health and familiar with a real Rhodes or Wurlitzer, would ever mistake the Lizard for the real thing, but the instrument has a related timbre all of its own which I've come to like quite a lot over the years. I feel sort of the same way about Pianoteq's current Rhodes and Wurlitzer.
_
The AAS loses a little more mechanical character compared to the Pianoteq model, but both physical models still sound great. To me neither has annoying or weird and unpleasant artificial artefacts. It's more that they are missing something, not that anything wrong is added.
Other physical models of EPs from other software houses also sound pretty good.
I think it's probably much easier to get most of the way there (musically satisfying results, if not absolute realism) recreating EPs compared to all of acoustic piano's characteristics.
Both the AAS and Modartt could sound a bit more realistic, but I agree they sound great in their own way.
OTOH I do believe both would fool a lot of the public used within dense tracks with other FX. Most have never been anywhere near a real Rhodes or Wurly.
The differences in any models diminish when FX are applied anyway.
electric pianos seem like a good addition to increase the range of instruments, but people here don't seem to use them that much.
why is that? what are your thoughts in the electric pianos?i am tempted to get them, but when i try them in demo mode, i find myself scrolling through the presets without ever getting stuck on the one that sounds 'just right', whatever that means.
I got them as well and they have been improved significantly compared to their previous models. I do think there is plenty of room for improvement on the instruments as well. They are good representation of their counterpart but I think some aspects are lacking. I'll try to recollect some aspects:
First of all the releases of the tines, currently we only have a decent wooden release from the hammer itself but not the sound of the tines particularly on the bass keys.
The second aspect were these pianos are clearly lacking it's the electrical output and amp section, we only have currently a pure sound generated from the pickups. But this signal is too low in real e. pianos and needs to be amplified in some ways. Depending on the amp the signal can be crystal clear or more crunchy and warm when a tube amp is used. We also lack the static noise of the AV voltage of the amp used.
The third aspect is a remarkable difference between the suitcase and the stage version of the Rhodes which are completely different and is only partially captured by the models (the bell tones of the suitcase is there, the precise intonation of the MKII is also there). For example the suitcase Rhodes not only had a mono output but also a built in stereo amplifier which has a particular sound which is often recorded separetely with mics and presents a distinct sound wheather it's recorded with mics on the front or the back. The stage Rhodes instead had a somewhat different tone but the main characteristics of the portable version are mainly noises (it was pretty difficult to eliminate them in the recording process) and this is very clear if you lay your hands on real Rhodes, if you try to play it acoustically that's actually the main thing you will hear and these are for obvious reasons much more present in the stage version and this is an aspect which only in the last update has seen some changes but we are still miles away from the real thing which has grit and noises all over the place.
Fourth aspect is mainly related to the sound output. Besides the suitcase (in stereo) the instruments in RL only have a built in mono output and the stereo which is built in PTQ is pretty wild compared to the way which a stereo image was produced using delays or tremolos (stereo panning) or a mild chorus. As already stated you either work with the mono (as I do) and ext. plugins or use the workaround suggested before. In any case, pretty unintuitive if you ask me and pretty far from the way it should be in terms of design, sound and accessibility.
Fifth aspect which is totally missing from the Rhodes is the bass notes pitch drift. Longer tines do not stay in tune when they vibrate strongly, no matter the tuner lol, so their pitch wavers and this is an aspect where the model in PTQ is lacking and could be improved upon.
Sixth aspect is related to the sound design aspect: Let's take the bell sound of the suitcase, it's true, with careful changes on pickups, tines attack and releases, I can make them almost invisible but why I don't have control over the bell itself so I can make the overal sound of this portion of the sound brighter, darker and control it over the keyboard range? In so far the changes I've noticed are particularly destructive (you can take them out or put them in but you don't control this aspect of the sound at all, you either take it as it is or lose it).
Seventh aspect is only a personal grift of mine: where is my MKV? I was forced to buy another library while waiting for this model!!!
Great post Chopin87.
Adding Mark V and perhaps Mk8 could be a good way to update the Electrics package.
I nearly suggesting that too. As I already mentioned two other new EPs I thought maybe not too push the concept too far.
I can imagine we will get a substantial improvement upon the electric pianos when the acoustics are all updated anyway. Perhaps adding an unofficial Mk V then?
Yes terrible is too strong a word, disappointing is more how I feel about them.
jamesb5 wrote:think they're terrible and need a lot of work (...)
I don’t think they’re terrible at all, absolutely not, but I do agree there is room for improvement, especially with regard to the instruments' ‘mimicking potential’. To me, the current versions of the PTQ Rhodes and Wurlitzer are more suggestive of the real instruments rather than nailing these instruments’ sounds and identity. I tend to consider them sort of distant relatives.
Now, ‘being suggestive of’ is frequently entirely satisfying as far as I’m concerned — I really do enjoy playing and working with the PTQ’s electric pianos —, but I also do believe that if Pianoteq wants to compete in the top echelon of uncanny Rhodes and Wurlitzer virtualizations, offering a sound, dynamic response and character that has listeners wondering if they’re listening to the real thing or not (which I can’t see happening all that often with the current versions), then yes, these two PTQ instruments do require some more work.
In their role as distant relatives of the originals however, I like 'em both very much. I have a similar soft spot for the AAS Lounge Lizard: no one in robust mental health and familiar with a real Rhodes or Wurlitzer, would ever mistake the Lizard for the real thing, but the instrument has a related timbre all of its own which I've come to like quite a lot over the years. I feel sort of the same way about Pianoteq's current Rhodes and Wurlitzer.
_
from my online 'research', I think the best electric pianos are by Keyscape, but i really don't want to invest that much money and diskspace just to get a nice sounding Rhodes, Wurlitzer etc...
from my online 'research', I think the best electric pianos are by Keyscape, but i really don't want to invest that much money and diskspace just to get a nice sounding Rhodes, Wurlitzer etc...
Imho they are just production ready. Tried Keyscape and for me it lacks several basic features (it's a rompler after all despite the quirks) but there are a bunch of nice sounding instruments (for e. pianos my eyes and ears loved the Vintage Vibe stuff) and the possibility to expand the sound possibilities combining and editing them in Omnisphere. Perhaps my expectations were too high when it came out and quickly boiled down. Regardless, it definitely has a market.
Great post Chopin87.
Adding Mark V and perhaps Mk8 could be a good way to update the Electrics package.
I nearly suggesting that too. As I already mentioned two other new EPs I thought maybe not too push the concept too far.I can imagine we will get a substantial improvement upon the electric pianos when the acoustics are all updated anyway. Perhaps adding an unofficial Mk V then?
I am curious to try an MK8 but I think I need to wait before some unit gets shipped around here. From the videos the quality should be on point.
For the record, one of the two jazz pianists I mentioned for this piano/electric piano duet has a real Rhodes, if the PTQ was so "terrible" he wouldn't have agreed to use it. But indeed, the amp section can be improved, so we decided to re-amp. For ease of use, I simply used the Voxengo Boogex! I got better results with a pair of C414s in my room but it was a headache to keep the sound consistent from track to track.
The second aspect were these pianos are clearly lacking it's the electrical output and amp section, we only have currently a pure sound generated from the pickups. But this signal is too low in real e. pianos and needs to be amplified in some ways. Depending on the amp the signal can be crystal clear or more crunchy and warm when a tube amp is used. We also lack the static noise of the AV voltage of the amp used.
The third aspect is a remarkable difference between the suitcase and the stage version of the Rhodes which are completely different and is only partially captured by the models (the bell tones of the suitcase is there, the precise intonation of the MKII is also there). For example the suitcase Rhodes not only had a mono output but also a built in stereo amplifier which has a particular sound which is often recorded separetely with mics and presents a distinct sound wheather it's recorded with mics on the front or the back.
The sound of the Suitcase models is my favorite by far, but there are fewer of these instruments available to analyze now than there are of the Stage models. Also, there were several different solid state amps and speakers built into them over the years, and each added a different character to the sound. I would add to your list of Suitcase characteristics a compression of the dynamics by the solid state amp. I would love a more accurate emulation of the Suitcase details, but I'm afraid it might be difficult for the good folks at Modartt to have access to one in excellent shape. I'm guessing some amp components will have deteriorated over time, too.
Good examples of Suitcase Rhodes in recordings were probably subjected to a variety of EQ, compression and other treatments that might not be the best source for modelling. With that caveat, my ideal Suitcase sound is the clean (no FX) studio recording of jazz tunes by Hank Jones in his album Rockin' In Rhythm (1977). Some tunes with the Suitcase ping-pong panning, some without, but otherwise pure Suitcase sound. I love the 70's Herbie and Chick stuff on Rhodes, too, but Hank approaches the Rhodes like a full-range piano, so you can hear every detail the instrument is (was) capable of.
great post with lots of thoughtful and constructive criticism.
Seventh aspect is only a personal grift of mine: where is my MKV? I was forced to buy another library while waiting for this model!!!
i too would love to see a Mark V, in particular this one, which has to be the GOAT EP:
Chick Corea's Mark V, extensively sampled, was for a long time available as a free expansion for the Yamaha Montage or ModX. Just had a quick look, but I can't find it anymore. (I have a Montage and the expansion. Pretty good.)
The video below gives an overview of the patches, and in the one below that, Corea talks about the instrument.
_
This is a fascinating and very informative thread. I must confess to limitless ignorance regarding electric pianos, and this thread (like much else on the Pianoteq forum) has taught me a lot. For the record, I do enjoy the Pianoteq models (including Hohner and CP-80) - it's not important to me if they're not 100% authentic, I just enjoy them for what they are.
This is a fascinating and very informative thread. I must confess to limitless ignorance regarding electric pianos, and this thread (like much else on the Pianoteq forum) has taught me a lot. For the record, I do enjoy the Pianoteq models (including Hohner and CP-80) - it's not important to me if they're not 100% authentic, I just enjoy them for what they are.
Well it's a momentary relief from thinking about the evil misery happening to the Ukrainians.
A Grand electric pack with CP70 and updated 80, along with Kawaii 308 with multiple amplifier options could be nice for the electric pianos too. Perhaps with felt and tacked "prepared" options also. The Rhodes could have that too.
So many option on the acoustics already.
Lots of great posts in this thread...I concur with most of what has been said. In a nutshell: the Pianoteq Rhodes, Wurlitzer and Hohner (which I've had for a few years) are indeed very usable and tweakable. I specially like the Hohners because they have a more unique character. However, for some reason, I tend not to play the Pianoteq electrics very much. Maybe something is missing, or I didn't invest enough time in tweaking for the sound I like.
I owned a Wurlitzer Model 200A for many years. The built-in speakers were so practical: you just turned on the thing and played it! (drove my neighbour crazy...!!!). I loved it and wrote most of my early songs on it. I really regret selling it! My future wife had a Rhodes Mark II 73 keys in her apartment, but she did not have a proper amp for it, and it sounded awful through her basic stereo system. She sold it quickly...
I think that one reason why a lot of Pianoteq users are not satisfied with the electrics is that their sound set up is optimized for the acoustic models (this is the case with our living room set up here). The electrics benefit from a more "rock-style" amplification (I can certainly hear this in my studio set up).
I was disappointed when I realized that the Yamaha CP70/80 is no longer there in the list of available keyboards in my Pianoteq Pro 7. It was such a sweet sounding electric.
Any reason why it was taken out? I must be out of the loop.
I was disappointed when I realized that the Yamaha CP70/80 is no longer there in the list of available keyboards in my Pianoteq Pro 7. It was such a sweet sounding electric.
Any reason why it was taken out? I must be out of the loop.
It's never gone anywhere. It's part of the free KIVIR collection. KIVIR has to be downloaded separately from the Modartt website.
The CP80 actually appears in the acoustics.
I think that one reason why a lot of Pianoteq users are not satisfied with the electrics is that their sound set up is optimized for the acoustic models (this is the case with our living room set up here). The electrics benefit from a more "rock-style" amplification (I can certainly hear this in my studio set up).
This is exactly my feeling too, hence the use of the Boogex plug-in...
aWc wrote:I think that one reason why a lot of Pianoteq users are not satisfied with the electrics is that their sound set up is optimized for the acoustic models (this is the case with our living room set up here). The electrics benefit from a more "rock-style" amplification (I can certainly hear this in my studio set up).
This is exactly my feeling too, hence the use of the Boogex plug-in...
how exactly do you use an additional amp? you run pianoteq inside a DAW, and add an amp plugin there? I usually run pianoteq standalone, but might be worth checking the DAW options
Luc Henrion wrote:aWc wrote:I think that one reason why a lot of Pianoteq users are not satisfied with the electrics is that their sound set up is optimized for the acoustic models (this is the case with our living room set up here). The electrics benefit from a more "rock-style" amplification (I can certainly hear this in my studio set up).
This is exactly my feeling too, hence the use of the Boogex plug-in...
how exactly do you use an additional amp? you run pianoteq inside a DAW, and add an amp plugin there? I usually run pianoteq standalone, but might be worth checking the DAW options
Yes, if that's the sound you are after from an electric piano. Plenty of other FX you can try too. Distortion, delay, ensemble, reverb, cabinet impulse responses, fake output transformers, character compressors, you name it.
I suggest Reaper. It is extremely lightweight. It's a few megabytes instead of a few gigabytes!
It's cheaper than most (okay there are free DAWs now) and loads almost instantaneously. It's about as reliable as a DAW gets too, with very stable performance.
It gets regular updates.
If you didn't want to go that route there's already plenty you can do within Pianoteq itself to get a different character, rather than just relying on the presets.
+1 for Reaper. I was encouraged to use it by the endorsment of Pianoteq users such as Gaston. It may seem a bit daunting at first, but it's well worth the learning curve. And you can try it free (for 60 days I think). If you don't want to record anything, you can set up Pianoteq on a single track and just play...
+1 for Reaper. I was encouraged to use it by the endorsment of Pianoteq users such as Gaston. It may seem a bit daunting at first, but it's well worth the learning curve. And you can try it free (for 60 days I think). If you don't want to record anything, you can set up Pianoteq on a single track and just play...
i have propellerhead reason, and just checked out their amp. Indeed, the electric pianos get a bit more punch.
for now I will stick to playing directly with standalone pianoteq rather than the daw, though
+1 for Reaper. I was encouraged to use it by the endorsment of Pianoteq users such as Gaston. It may seem a bit daunting at first, but it's well worth the learning curve. And you can try it free (for 60 days I think). If you don't want to record anything, you can set up Pianoteq on a single track and just play...
To show how I use Reaper with Pianoteq I have made this quick improvisation, with a screenshot.
https://ahp.li/8df531538128fdd83d11.jpg
Et la musique :
I think the physical modeling of electric pianos is perfect. That's because electric pianos sound through speakers, and the Pianoteq also sounds through speakers. That is, the vibrating body responsible for sound production is exactly the same.
However, acoustic pianos sound through a soundboard. So, what the Pianoteq can achieve is a miked piano sounding through loudspeakers, but never a true acoustic piano in a real environment. Possibly, this limit would be overcome if we use the Pianoteq on a flat surface acoustic transducer.
It's not the fault of the algorithms and the developers' fault, but the disparity of the vibrating bodies that reproduce the sound.
dazric wrote:+1 for Reaper. I was encouraged to use it by the endorsment of Pianoteq users such as Gaston. It may seem a bit daunting at first, but it's well worth the learning curve. And you can try it free (for 60 days I think). If you don't want to record anything, you can set up Pianoteq on a single track and just play...
To show how I use Reaper with Pianoteq I have made this quick improvisation, with a screenshot.
https://ahp.li/8df531538128fdd83d11.jpg
Et la musique :
what exactly are you using the DAW for? additional compression, equaliser, amp etc?
what exactly are you using the DAW for? additional compression, equaliser, amp etc?
None of these.
I use the DAW mostly for the MIDI editor:
1) adjusting the playback speed (by shortening item lenght) of each sequence (I'm not a virtuoso pianist so I usually play slower than I'd like).
2) Correction of some notes (pitch, length, velocity).
3) possibly adding a few notes that seem to be missing after the first listening, or removing those that seem useless or annoying.
Then when I am satisfied with the result I render it with Reaper, so I'm ready to upload on Hearthis or elsewhere.
Personally, I use a DAW (often Logic Pro X but also Reaper or Cubase) to record PTQ inside a more complex orchestration, not only to play with... And it does indeed allow me to have access to a lot of effects (VST). In fact I very rarely use PTQ in stand-alone mode. And I add that Reaper is indeed very powerful, but that it requires a not insignificant time of learning.
Personally, I use a DAW (often Logic Pro X but also Reaper or Cubase) to record PTQ inside a more complex orchestration, not only to play with... And it does indeed allow me to have access to a lot of effects (VST). In fact I very rarely use PTQ in stand-alone mode. And I add that Reaper is indeed very powerful, but that it requires a not insignificant time of learning.
Yes, it's worth noting that if you only want to add VST effects for live playing, there are simpler alternatives, such as Cantabile (of which the Lite version is free).
Luc Henrion wrote:Personally, I use a DAW (often Logic Pro X but also Reaper or Cubase) to record PTQ inside a more complex orchestration, not only to play with... And it does indeed allow me to have access to a lot of effects (VST). In fact I very rarely use PTQ in stand-alone mode. And I add that Reaper is indeed very powerful, but that it requires a not insignificant time of learning.
Yes, it's worth noting that if you only want to add VST effects for live playing, there are simpler alternatives, such as Cantabile (of which the Lite version is free).
Reaper can be as simple or as complex as you like.
Loading up Reaper takes a few seconds. Clicking to add Pianoteq track then clicking on the FX you want really is simple.
If you want creating project templates by saving a track with additional FX to open another time with a click of the mouse.
Other DAWs gobble up gigabytes, and take much longer to load.
Reaper is a few megabytes.
The Vintage Tines W1 hasn't been revised since a long time, it is on our todo list.
BTW, Piet De Ridder has just remixed his MKII demo "119bpm" on page https://www.modartt.com/electric, thank you Piet!
dazric wrote:Luc Henrion wrote:Personally, I use a DAW (often Logic Pro X but also Reaper or Cubase) to record PTQ inside a more complex orchestration, not only to play with... And it does indeed allow me to have access to a lot of effects (VST). In fact I very rarely use PTQ in stand-alone mode. And I add that Reaper is indeed very powerful, but that it requires a not insignificant time of learning.
Yes, it's worth noting that if you only want to add VST effects for live playing, there are simpler alternatives, such as Cantabile (of which the Lite version is free).
Reaper can be as simple or as complex as you like.
Loading up Reaper takes a few seconds. Clicking to add Pianoteq track then clicking on the FX you want really is simple.If you want creating project templates by saving a track with additional FX to open another time with a click of the mouse.
Other DAWs gobble up gigabytes, and take much longer to load.
Reaper is a few megabytes.
Since version 5 it has become even simpler. Just a couple of videos from Kenny Gioia and you're ready to go.
The Vintage Tines W1 hasn't been revised since a long time, it is on our todo list.
BTW, Piet De Ridder has just remixed his MKII demo "119bpm" on page https://www.modartt.com/electric, thank you Piet!
Glad to hear that. Any update is always welcome.
The Vintage Tines W1 hasn't been revised since a long time, it is on our todo list.
BTW, Piet De Ridder has just remixed his MKII demo "119bpm" on page https://www.modartt.com/electric, thank you Piet!
What does that entail Phil_G, do you mean a complete revamp of the algorithm/ modeling, or a tweaking of existing profiles ?
Philippe Guillaume wrote:The Vintage Tines W1 hasn't been revised since a long time, it is on our todo list.
BTW, Piet De Ridder has just remixed his MKII demo "119bpm" on page https://www.modartt.com/electric, thank you Piet!What does that entail Phil_G, do you mean a complete revamp of the algorithm/ modeling, or a tweaking of existing profiles ?
I mean a revoicing. The currrent version is in fact quite close to the original instrument we recorded, so it becomes more a matter of taste or a matter of reference (as far as I can hear from other sampled versions, there can be significant differences from one Wurlitzer model 200A to another one, unless these differences are due to EQing during recording or library sound design).
JohnTate wrote:Philippe Guillaume wrote:The Vintage Tines W1 hasn't been revised since a long time, it is on our todo list.
BTW, Piet De Ridder has just remixed his MKII demo "119bpm" on page https://www.modartt.com/electric, thank you Piet!What does that entail Phil_G, do you mean a complete revamp of the algorithm/ modeling, or a tweaking of existing profiles ?
I mean a revoicing. The currrent version is in fact quite close to the original instrument we recorded, so it becomes more a matter of taste or a matter of reference (as far as I can hear from other sampled version, there can be important differences from one Wurlitzer model 200A to another one, unless these differences are due to EQing during recording/design).
Yes, that's because the 200A is the more "polished" version of the Wurlitzer. It's kinda like trying to find a difference between say 2 different models of the MarkVII where the components have been optimized. But if we look at some different models like the 120 f.e. which had different amp (tubes not solid state, it always comes back to that, sorry!), different action, and different case (wood instead of plastic) than you can hear those differences much more.
