Topic by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Topic: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Hi all,

First post here after some lurking . I’m Daniel, a (mostly) self-taught classical pianist. A little while ago I was looking to buy a small acoustic grand piano and send my ancient Roland HP-300e into well-deserved retirement; but after spending a few weekends in London’s piano stores, I discovered how far digital hybrids have come; and I discovered Pianoteq, which completely sold me on the dream of having multiple concert-level grands to choose from.

Now, while I await the delivery of my shiny Kawai NV10s, I’ve been trying to pick which piano models I should get for Pianoteq. I wanted to share the views I formed during many hours with the demo, in case it’ll help others in the same situation.




My favourite models


Kawai SK-EX: My bias for Kawai acoustic grands notwithstanding, I think the Pianoteq Kawai is an impeccable model. I wasn’t blown away by the demo tracks on the website, but playing it, its clarity and expressiveness are immediately apparent. I would describe its character as “analytical”: the harmonics stay nicely separated and remain clear even in complex chords. Sustained notes develop in a balanced way - not a lot of idiosyncracy here, again it’s “analytical”. The bass range is a bit tame but, to its credit, didn’t sound synthetic. What I find interesting is that the timbre of the notes shift quite a rapidly with attack velocity, which on one hand makes this instrument quite versatile across a range of classical genres, it punishes inaccurate playing quite a lot. I can see why the real instrument is used in competitions: you can communicate very effectively with it, but you’ll also announce any mistakes you make. This also makes it a very good practice instrument. Overall I kind of love it. If I could only have one piano model, I’d pick the Kawai. But in reality, I ended up not choosing it at all, simply because the Novus NV10s comes with a modelled SK-EX built in. From my time in the stores, it felt comparable to the Pianoteq one (I have a conspiracy theory that they share tech). I’ll re-evaluate once the NV10S arrives, but in the meantime, I wanted to pick options that add more variety

Bosendorfer: This model has a reputation for the best bass, and I fully agree. Playing Mussorgsky’s Bydlo (endless fortissimo chords in the low registers: usually sounds awful), all other models felt either anaemic or washed out. The Bosendorfer retained clarity at stronger attacks and provided presence at softer dynamics. For romantic repertoire, the mid and high registers of the Petrofs probably had the upper edge for me (a bit more lyrical and singing), but it wasn’t enough to offset the Bosendorfer’s bass dominance. As a bonus, if you’re German, the name is fun to say; it’s like announcing a wrestler. I will say that this is a bit of a specialist instrument; it excels at romantic music, but doesn’t have enough bite for earlier stuff and is a bit too rich in the overtones for later stuff. I’d be unhappy if it were my only instrument, but matched to the right repertoire, it’s phenomenal.

Steingraeber: Choosing an instrument classical and baroque material was pretty difficult. The reason I ended up with the Streingraeber is a subjective and visceral one: whenever I played it, I was completely sold on the illusion that I’m playing an acoustic. I don’t know, maybe it’s because it matches the acoustic grands I was playing growing up, but it just felt the Steingraeber and I understood each other. Especially the aspirated overtones in the high register gave me nostalgia - I could smell the lacquer in the practice rooms of yore. This is not the most refined sound, but it’s what a recital in your local town hall is supposed to sound like. The Steingraeber is wonderfully percussive for Mozart and has just enough colour for Beethoven. For Baroque material it has a little bit too much colour in my opinion… but for me, this is the kind of instrument I would play Bach on, so it hits the spot. Your mileage may vary, though: perhaps you prefer the clarity of the Grotian; the precison of the SK-EX or the authenticity of the Kremsegg/KIViR instruments, for Baroque.

Steinway and Sons D: I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with my third choice. The Steinway sound is very recognisable and pretty. My problem is it’s too pretty. It’s very difficult to make the (esp. NY) Steinway produce an ugly sound, making it feel very filtered, and tame at higher dynamics. This, in turn, often dispelled the illusion of an acoustic grand to me while playing, so I needed to avoid pushing its boundaries. On softer dynamics, it has a very gentle bite to it, making it a very forgiving instrument to play. It’s kind of the opposite of the SK-EX in that regard. But anyway, once you accept the aesthetic opinions that this piano comes with, it really is very beautiful. Sustained notes evolve cleanly, but with much more character than the Kawai. Overtones have a nice colour to them, which is still tame enough not to overpower the interpretation of a piece. It’s a very nice Debussy/Ravel instrument. The Hamburg variant is, in my opinion, different enough to count as a whole separate instrument. It feels like the NY version’s twin who went to Europe for a year, picking up some tasteful bluntness while staying rooted in its soda-pop origins. I think I’d match my choice to my audience: the NY Steinway is a very, very accessible listening experience, whereas the the Hamburg allows itself to be a tiny little bit more challenging. But make no mistake: They are both “popular” interpretations of classical music, and in my opinion, some of the other options do a much better job at making pre-1850s material sound interesting.



So with these three choices (Bosendorfer, Steinway & Sons D, Steingraeber), I feel I ended up with options that cover a wide array of classical styles and bring a lot of character and differentiation to the table. Baroque is the weak point with this collection, but everything from classical onward is covered. The Steinways will give me a bit of leeway to play more modern stuff as well when people force me to .



Other contestants

Bluthner: I really liked the audio demos of the Bluthner and was certain it would be one of my picks; but playing it, I bounced off the aliquot system hard. It was just too funky for every-day use. I’m still curious about it as a specialist instrument, but it’s not helping me cover the bases of classical playing.

C Bechstein: Like the Steingraeber, this model had sounded like the pianos I grew up with. I loved the percussiveness of its hammer strikes. But in playing it, I found the body resonances in the model too overpowering, so I didn’t enjoy listening to it as much as the Steingraeber. The Steingraeber also seemed to have a more well rounded frequency spectrum. It sounds a little less clean than the Bechstein, which is good for Beethoven and divisive for Mozart; I came down to personal preference in the end.

Grotian: The perfect Bach instrument in my opinion: tamer and cleaner than the Steingraeber and not quite as edgy in its attack than the Bechstein, it maintains the layout of complex polyphony very well. I suspect on paper, it’s probably the better model than the Steingraeber, especially if you don’t agree with the Steingraeber’s opinion of what Beethoven should sound like. The only reason I went with the Steingraeber is that “wow” effect it gave me of being in a room with a real acoustic grand; that outweighed all the edges for me. But your mileage may vary! Very possible that the Grotian would be the better choice for most people. If I could pick a fourth model, this would be it.

Steinway B: Honestly, I enjoyed playing the B more than the two Ds - it really does feel very intimate and some (but not all!) of the quieter Debussy pieces I tried were more interesting to play on the B. I flip-flopped a bit on this but in the end went with the greater variety that the D double-pack gives me. Also, I felt that by tweaking the design parameters of the Hamburg, I could get very close to the B’s intimacy. It may be a guilty purchase further down the line though.

The Petrofs: These were the Bosendorfer’s main competition for romantic material, and I preferred the lyricism of their mid and high ranges - a good balance of clarity and colour, in places where the Bosendorfer can sound a bit hollow. But while they have a serviceable bass range, they just can’t compete with the organic presence of the Bosendorfer’s range. I do feel that the Petrof’s are more versatile; they do a very nice job with Classical period stuff (but their rich colour makes them sound artificial with Baroque). As a choice for romantic music, I’d say you need to figure out how important the bass is for you. If the answer is “not very”, I’d choose the Petrofs over the Bosendorfer. I’m sad that they didn’t make the cut; but I don’t think I’ll get them any time soon because my other choices don’t leave any gaps they could fill.

K2: I didn’t like it as a choice for classical music - it succeeds in its mission to be a “jack of all trades” instrument, but what I think I learned during my time with the demo is that I need to see some beauty flaws in the models I play - otherwise I just perceive them as the “Piano 1” mode of a digital, and that is exactly the emotion that the K2 gave me.

YC5: I love Kawais and like Yamahas, so I was surprised to be left cold by the YC5. What I want for classical music is an interesting timbral shift across dynamics, to give me different voices for storytelling; but the YC5 didn’t do enough there. Playing it, I found I was quickly staying at the same dynamic because variations just came across as changes in volume.

U4: I’m not an upright piano guy, so can’t say much other than that the U4 sold me on the illusion of a different form factor. Playing it felt so different to the grands that it was like the keys on my digital piano had changed physically. It also has a very convincing, organic-sounding lower register: It’s good at what it does. For me, though, since my new piano comes with an upright model built-in, I won’t go with the U4.



Hope that was useful - if you have other views to share I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Reply by Pianistically

  • Avatar
  • Pianistically
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 12-07-2023
  • Posts: 213

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:

Hi all,

First post here after some lurking . I’m Daniel, a (mostly) self-taught classical pianist. A little while ago I was looking to buy a small acoustic grand piano and send my ancient Roland HP-300e into well-deserved retirement; but after spending a few weekends in London’s piano stores, I discovered how far digital hybrids have come; and I discovered Pianoteq, which completely sold me on the dream of having multiple concert-level grands to choose from.

Now, while I await the delivery of my shiny Kawai NV10s, I’ve been trying to pick which piano models I should get for Pianoteq. I wanted to share the views I formed during many hours with the demo, in case it’ll help others in the same situation.




My favourite models


Kawai SK-EX: My bias for Kawai acoustic grands notwithstanding, I think the Pianoteq Kawai is an impeccable model. I wasn’t blown away by the demo tracks on the website, but playing it, its clarity and expressiveness are immediately apparent. I would describe its character as “analytical”: the harmonics stay nicely separated and remain clear even in complex chords. Sustained notes develop in a balanced way - not a lot of idiosyncracy here, again it’s “analytical”. The bass range is a bit tame but, to its credit, didn’t sound synthetic. What I find interesting is that the timbre of the notes shift quite a rapidly with attack velocity, which on one hand makes this instrument quite versatile across a range of classical genres, it punishes inaccurate playing quite a lot. I can see why the real instrument is used in competitions: you can communicate very effectively with it, but you’ll also announce any mistakes you make. This also makes it a very good practice instrument. Overall I kind of love it. If I could only have one piano model, I’d pick the Kawai. But in reality, I ended up not choosing it at all, simply because the Novus NV10s comes with a modelled SK-EX built in. From my time in the stores, it felt comparable to the Pianoteq one (I have a conspiracy theory that they share tech). I’ll re-evaluate once the NV10S arrives, but in the meantime, I wanted to pick options that add more variety

Bosendorfer: This model has a reputation for the best bass, and I fully agree. Playing Mussorgsky’s Bydlo (endless fortissimo chords in the low registers: usually sounds awful), all other models felt either anaemic or washed out. The Bosendorfer retained clarity at stronger attacks and provided presence at softer dynamics. For romantic repertoire, the mid and high registers of the Petrofs probably had the upper edge for me (a bit more lyrical and singing), but it wasn’t enough to offset the Bosendorfer’s bass dominance. As a bonus, if you’re German, the name is fun to say; it’s like announcing a wrestler. I will say that this is a bit of a specialist instrument; it excels at romantic music, but doesn’t have enough bite for earlier stuff and is a bit too rich in the overtones for later stuff. I’d be unhappy if it were my only instrument, but matched to the right repertoire, it’s phenomenal.

Steingraeber: Choosing an instrument classical and baroque material was pretty difficult. The reason I ended up with the Streingraeber is a subjective and visceral one: whenever I played it, I was completely sold on the illusion that I’m playing an acoustic. I don’t know, maybe it’s because it matches the acoustic grands I was playing growing up, but it just felt the Steingraeber and I understood each other. Especially the aspirated overtones in the high register gave me nostalgia - I could smell the lacquer in the practice rooms of yore. This is not the most refined sound, but it’s what a recital in your local town hall is supposed to sound like. The Steingraeber is wonderfully percussive for Mozart and has just enough colour for Beethoven. For Baroque material it has a little bit too much colour in my opinion… but for me, this is the kind of instrument I would play Bach on, so it hits the spot. Your mileage may vary, though: perhaps you prefer the clarity of the Grotian; the precison of the SK-EX or the authenticity of the Kremsegg/KIViR instruments, for Baroque.

Steinway and Sons D: I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with my third choice. The Steinway sound is very recognisable and pretty. My problem is it’s too pretty. It’s very difficult to make the (esp. NY) Steinway produce an ugly sound, making it feel very filtered, and tame at higher dynamics. This, in turn, often dispelled the illusion of an acoustic grand to me while playing, so I needed to avoid pushing its boundaries. On softer dynamics, it has a very gentle bite to it, making it a very forgiving instrument to play. It’s kind of the opposite of the SK-EX in that regard. But anyway, once you accept the aesthetic opinions that this piano comes with, it really is very beautiful. Sustained notes evolve cleanly, but with much more character than the Kawai. Overtones have a nice colour to them, which is still tame enough not to overpower the interpretation of a piece. It’s a very nice Debussy/Ravel instrument. The Hamburg variant is, in my opinion, different enough to count as a whole separate instrument. It feels like the NY version’s twin who went to Europe for a year, picking up some tasteful bluntness while staying rooted in its soda-pop origins. I think I’d match my choice to my audience: the NY Steinway is a very, very accessible listening experience, whereas the the Hamburg allows itself to be a tiny little bit more challenging. But make no mistake: They are both “popular” interpretations of classical music, and in my opinion, some of the other options do a much better job at making pre-1850s material sound interesting.



So with these three choices (Bosendorfer, Steinway & Sons D, Steingraeber), I feel I ended up with options that cover a wide array of classical styles and bring a lot of character and differentiation to the table. Baroque is the weak point with this collection, but everything from classical onward is covered. The Steinways will give me a bit of leeway to play more modern stuff as well when people force me to .



Other contestants

Bluthner: I really liked the audio demos of the Bluthner and was certain it would be one of my picks; but playing it, I bounced off the aliquot system hard. It was just too funky for every-day use. I’m still curious about it as a specialist instrument, but it’s not helping me cover the bases of classical playing.

C Bechstein: Like the Steingraeber, this model had sounded like the pianos I grew up with. I loved the percussiveness of its hammer strikes. But in playing it, I found the body resonances in the model too overpowering, so I didn’t enjoy listening to it as much as the Steingraeber. The Steingraeber also seemed to have a more well rounded frequency spectrum. It sounds a little less clean than the Bechstein, which is good for Beethoven and divisive for Mozart; I came down to personal preference in the end.

Grotian: The perfect Bach instrument in my opinion: tamer and cleaner than the Steingraeber and not quite as edgy in its attack than the Bechstein, it maintains the layout of complex polyphony very well. I suspect on paper, it’s probably the better model than the Steingraeber, especially if you don’t agree with the Steingraeber’s opinion of what Beethoven should sound like. The only reason I went with the Steingraeber is that “wow” effect it gave me of being in a room with a real acoustic grand; that outweighed all the edges for me. But your mileage may vary! Very possible that the Grotian would be the better choice for most people. If I could pick a fourth model, this would be it.

Steinway B: Honestly, I enjoyed playing the B more than the two Ds - it really does feel very intimate and some (but not all!) of the quieter Debussy pieces I tried were more interesting to play on the B. I flip-flopped a bit on this but in the end went with the greater variety that the D double-pack gives me. Also, I felt that by tweaking the design parameters of the Hamburg, I could get very close to the B’s intimacy. It may be a guilty purchase further down the line though.

The Petrofs: These were the Bosendorfer’s main competition for romantic material, and I preferred the lyricism of their mid and high ranges - a good balance of clarity and colour, in places where the Bosendorfer can sound a bit hollow. But while they have a serviceable bass range, they just can’t compete with the organic presence of the Bosendorfer’s range. I do feel that the Petrof’s are more versatile; they do a very nice job with Classical period stuff (but their rich colour makes them sound artificial with Baroque). As a choice for romantic music, I’d say you need to figure out how important the bass is for you. If the answer is “not very”, I’d choose the Petrofs over the Bosendorfer. I’m sad that they didn’t make the cut; but I don’t think I’ll get them any time soon because my other choices don’t leave any gaps they could fill.

K2: I didn’t like it as a choice for classical music - it succeeds in its mission to be a “jack of all trades” instrument, but what I think I learned during my time with the demo is that I need to see some beauty flaws in the models I play - otherwise I just perceive them as the “Piano 1” mode of a digital, and that is exactly the emotion that the K2 gave me.

YC5: I love Kawais and like Yamahas, so I was surprised to be left cold by the YC5. What I want for classical music is an interesting timbral shift across dynamics, to give me different voices for storytelling; but the YC5 didn’t do enough there. Playing it, I found I was quickly staying at the same dynamic because variations just came across as changes in volume.

U4: I’m not an upright piano guy, so can’t say much other than that the U4 sold me on the illusion of a different form factor. Playing it felt so different to the grands that it was like the keys on my digital piano had changed physically. It also has a very convincing, organic-sounding lower register: It’s good at what it does. For me, though, since my new piano comes with an upright model built-in, I won’t go with the U4.



Hope that was useful - if you have other views to share I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Always interesting to read detailed personal opinion of the various instruments . My two favourites ones are the latest Shigaru Kawai and Bosendorfer. Some algorithms must have changed as the degree of realism is superior to any model Modartt has released so far . As you point out , I find these 2 instruments unforgiving which is ideal for practising advanced repertoire .

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Pianistically wrote:

Always interesting to read detailed personal opinion of the various instruments . My two favourites ones are the latest Shigaru Kawai and Bosendorfer. Some algorithms must have changed as the degree of realism is superior to any model Modartt has released so far . As you point out , I find these 2 instruments unforgiving which is ideal for practising advanced repertoire .

Fully agree, the newer ones are really exciting with regards to realism and expression. Hopefully that's a sign of things to come!

Reply by Coises

  • Avatar
  • Coises
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 06-12-2019
  • Posts: 95

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:

Steinway B: Honestly, I enjoyed playing the B more than the two Ds - it really does feel very intimate and some (but not all!) of the quieter Debussy pieces I tried were more interesting to play on the B. I flip-flopped a bit on this but in the end went with the greater variety that the D double-pack gives me. Also, I felt that by tweaking the design parameters of the Hamburg, I could get very close to the B’s intimacy. It may be a guilty purchase further down the line though.

I’m not a classical pianist. I grew up playing acoustic pianos, starting in the late 1960s, up until around 1990. Events led me to playing MIDI controllers feeding virtual pianos since the mid-90s, and to Pianoteq a few years ago.

The Steinway B Prelude is the preset I use by far the most, because it feels and sounds to me the most like I’m actually playing a piano in a normal room at home. If I’m making a recording to use in a mix for a specific song, I’ll often choose a different model. But for writing, improvising, practicing and just general day-to-day enjoyment, I prefer the Steinway B to all the others. It just feels realistic and “normal”; nothing fussy, nothing exaggerated, but also very well-balanced and well-maintained — and I don’t spend time switching from one model to another instead of playing, because it works for everything.

Reply by Pianoteqenthusiast

  • Avatar
  • Pianoteqenthusiast
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 25-10-2013
  • Posts: 4,090

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:

Hi all,

First post here after some lurking . I’m Daniel, a (mostly) self-taught classical pianist. A little while ago I was looking to buy a small acoustic grand piano and send my ancient Roland HP-300e into well-deserved retirement; but after spending a few weekends in London’s piano stores, I discovered how far digital hybrids have come; and I discovered Pianoteq, which completely sold me on the dream of having multiple concert-level grands to choose from.

Now, while I await the delivery of my shiny Kawai NV10s, I’ve been trying to pick which piano models I should get for Pianoteq. I wanted to share the views I formed during many hours with the demo, in case it’ll help others in the same situation.




My favourite models


Kawai SK-EX: My bias for Kawai acoustic grands notwithstanding, I think the Pianoteq Kawai is an impeccable model. I wasn’t blown away by the demo tracks on the website, but playing it, its clarity and expressiveness are immediately apparent. I would describe its character as “analytical”: the harmonics stay nicely separated and remain clear even in complex chords. Sustained notes develop in a balanced way - not a lot of idiosyncracy here, again it’s “analytical”. The bass range is a bit tame but, to its credit, didn’t sound synthetic. What I find interesting is that the timbre of the notes shift quite a rapidly with attack velocity, which on one hand makes this instrument quite versatile across a range of classical genres, it punishes inaccurate playing quite a lot. I can see why the real instrument is used in competitions: you can communicate very effectively with it, but you’ll also announce any mistakes you make. This also makes it a very good practice instrument. Overall I kind of love it. If I could only have one piano model, I’d pick the Kawai. But in reality, I ended up not choosing it at all, simply because the Novus NV10s comes with a modelled SK-EX built in. From my time in the stores, it felt comparable to the Pianoteq one (I have a conspiracy theory that they share tech). I’ll re-evaluate once the NV10S arrives, but in the meantime, I wanted to pick options that add more variety

Bosendorfer: This model has a reputation for the best bass, and I fully agree. Playing Mussorgsky’s Bydlo (endless fortissimo chords in the low registers: usually sounds awful), all other models felt either anaemic or washed out. The Bosendorfer retained clarity at stronger attacks and provided presence at softer dynamics. For romantic repertoire, the mid and high registers of the Petrofs probably had the upper edge for me (a bit more lyrical and singing), but it wasn’t enough to offset the Bosendorfer’s bass dominance. As a bonus, if you’re German, the name is fun to say; it’s like announcing a wrestler. I will say that this is a bit of a specialist instrument; it excels at romantic music, but doesn’t have enough bite for earlier stuff and is a bit too rich in the overtones for later stuff. I’d be unhappy if it were my only instrument, but matched to the right repertoire, it’s phenomenal.

Steingraeber: Choosing an instrument classical and baroque material was pretty difficult. The reason I ended up with the Streingraeber is a subjective and visceral one: whenever I played it, I was completely sold on the illusion that I’m playing an acoustic. I don’t know, maybe it’s because it matches the acoustic grands I was playing growing up, but it just felt the Steingraeber and I understood each other. Especially the aspirated overtones in the high register gave me nostalgia - I could smell the lacquer in the practice rooms of yore. This is not the most refined sound, but it’s what a recital in your local town hall is supposed to sound like. The Steingraeber is wonderfully percussive for Mozart and has just enough colour for Beethoven. For Baroque material it has a little bit too much colour in my opinion… but for me, this is the kind of instrument I would play Bach on, so it hits the spot. Your mileage may vary, though: perhaps you prefer the clarity of the Grotian; the precison of the SK-EX or the authenticity of the Kremsegg/KIViR instruments, for Baroque.

Steinway and Sons D: I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with my third choice. The Steinway sound is very recognisable and pretty. My problem is it’s too pretty. It’s very difficult to make the (esp. NY) Steinway produce an ugly sound, making it feel very filtered, and tame at higher dynamics. This, in turn, often dispelled the illusion of an acoustic grand to me while playing, so I needed to avoid pushing its boundaries. On softer dynamics, it has a very gentle bite to it, making it a very forgiving instrument to play. It’s kind of the opposite of the SK-EX in that regard. But anyway, once you accept the aesthetic opinions that this piano comes with, it really is very beautiful. Sustained notes evolve cleanly, but with much more character than the Kawai. Overtones have a nice colour to them, which is still tame enough not to overpower the interpretation of a piece. It’s a very nice Debussy/Ravel instrument. The Hamburg variant is, in my opinion, different enough to count as a whole separate instrument. It feels like the NY version’s twin who went to Europe for a year, picking up some tasteful bluntness while staying rooted in its soda-pop origins. I think I’d match my choice to my audience: the NY Steinway is a very, very accessible listening experience, whereas the the Hamburg allows itself to be a tiny little bit more challenging. But make no mistake: They are both “popular” interpretations of classical music, and in my opinion, some of the other options do a much better job at making pre-1850s material sound interesting.



So with these three choices (Bosendorfer, Steinway & Sons D, Steingraeber), I feel I ended up with options that cover a wide array of classical styles and bring a lot of character and differentiation to the table. Baroque is the weak point with this collection, but everything from classical onward is covered. The Steinways will give me a bit of leeway to play more modern stuff as well when people force me to .



Other contestants

Bluthner: I really liked the audio demos of the Bluthner and was certain it would be one of my picks; but playing it, I bounced off the aliquot system hard. It was just too funky for every-day use. I’m still curious about it as a specialist instrument, but it’s not helping me cover the bases of classical playing.

C Bechstein: Like the Steingraeber, this model had sounded like the pianos I grew up with. I loved the percussiveness of its hammer strikes. But in playing it, I found the body resonances in the model too overpowering, so I didn’t enjoy listening to it as much as the Steingraeber. The Steingraeber also seemed to have a more well rounded frequency spectrum. It sounds a little less clean than the Bechstein, which is good for Beethoven and divisive for Mozart; I came down to personal preference in the end.

Grotian: The perfect Bach instrument in my opinion: tamer and cleaner than the Steingraeber and not quite as edgy in its attack than the Bechstein, it maintains the layout of complex polyphony very well. I suspect on paper, it’s probably the better model than the Steingraeber, especially if you don’t agree with the Steingraeber’s opinion of what Beethoven should sound like. The only reason I went with the Steingraeber is that “wow” effect it gave me of being in a room with a real acoustic grand; that outweighed all the edges for me. But your mileage may vary! Very possible that the Grotian would be the better choice for most people. If I could pick a fourth model, this would be it.

Steinway B: Honestly, I enjoyed playing the B more than the two Ds - it really does feel very intimate and some (but not all!) of the quieter Debussy pieces I tried were more interesting to play on the B. I flip-flopped a bit on this but in the end went with the greater variety that the D double-pack gives me. Also, I felt that by tweaking the design parameters of the Hamburg, I could get very close to the B’s intimacy. It may be a guilty purchase further down the line though.

The Petrofs: These were the Bosendorfer’s main competition for romantic material, and I preferred the lyricism of their mid and high ranges - a good balance of clarity and colour, in places where the Bosendorfer can sound a bit hollow. But while they have a serviceable bass range, they just can’t compete with the organic presence of the Bosendorfer’s range. I do feel that the Petrof’s are more versatile; they do a very nice job with Classical period stuff (but their rich colour makes them sound artificial with Baroque). As a choice for romantic music, I’d say you need to figure out how important the bass is for you. If the answer is “not very”, I’d choose the Petrofs over the Bosendorfer. I’m sad that they didn’t make the cut; but I don’t think I’ll get them any time soon because my other choices don’t leave any gaps they could fill.

K2: I didn’t like it as a choice for classical music - it succeeds in its mission to be a “jack of all trades” instrument, but what I think I learned during my time with the demo is that I need to see some beauty flaws in the models I play - otherwise I just perceive them as the “Piano 1” mode of a digital, and that is exactly the emotion that the K2 gave me.

YC5: I love Kawais and like Yamahas, so I was surprised to be left cold by the YC5. What I want for classical music is an interesting timbral shift across dynamics, to give me different voices for storytelling; but the YC5 didn’t do enough there. Playing it, I found I was quickly staying at the same dynamic because variations just came across as changes in volume.

U4: I’m not an upright piano guy, so can’t say much other than that the U4 sold me on the illusion of a different form factor. Playing it felt so different to the grands that it was like the keys on my digital piano had changed physically. It also has a very convincing, organic-sounding lower register: It’s good at what it does. For me, though, since my new piano comes with an upright model built-in, I won’t go with the U4.



Hope that was useful - if you have other views to share I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Hello daniel_r328,

I am not a pianist but almost self taught too.
Nice to read your personal opinion, thanks for sharing. I can agree with most of it, Kawai is best and Steingraeber is very good.

Regarding your ”conspiracy theory that they share tech” I just want to mention that on Kawai site one can read that….. ” advanced piano sound engine combines the well-established process of sampling with the modern approach of physical modelling…multichannel sampling”. They are still using sampling.

Pianoteq pianos are physically modelled - true modelling - no samples at all.
I guess this makes a difference in how Kawai and Ptq Kawai sound when playing different types of music.
And Modartt piano sound has developed incredibly in recent years, as the Ptq Kawai sound proves.

Best wishes,

Stig

Last edited by Pianoteqenthusiast (27-07-2025 22:52)

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Pianoteqenthusiast wrote:

Regarding your ”conspiracy theory that they share tech” I just want to mention that on Kawai site one can read that….. ” advanced piano sound engine combines the well-established process of sampling with the modern approach of physical modelling…multichannel sampling”. They are still using sampling.

Heya Stig,

Yep, it's definitely not one-to-one, my "conspiracy theory" is just about the physical modelling part and how soon the engine hands over from samples to the simulation...

Based on the parameters found in the "virtual technician" section on the Kawai, my guess is that the samples only cover the initial attack, and that most of the subsequent sustain (including the played string(s)) is modelled. So I imagine what they're doing is similar to when people chain pianoteq as a resonance body to a sampled instrument in their DAWs. Whether they built their own modelling engine or licensed something existing, I don't know... but it's fun to pretend that everything that sounds good is secretly pianoteq .

Anyways, all of this is based on a vague memory of 10 minutes playing in the shop vs several hours at home with pianoteq's SK-EX. Once my NV10s arrives, I'll do a direct comparison and report back.

Reply by Key Fumbler

  • Avatar
  • Key Fumbler
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 20-10-2018
  • Posts: 1,520

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

All the modern piano models sound great. I do still feel that the Kawai sounds a cut above.
They are all so good in different ways that I would be prepared to accept my bias is placebo - it's hard to get over the perception bias that the latest has to be the best as it is the most recently developed.

Sometimes when I hear real recorded piano I heard things in the sound (even on good recordings) that sound subtly tonally synthetic, and in ways that are occasionally levelled at entirely synthetic virtual instruments. This could be artefacts of the recording equipment exaggerating certain elements of the sound. It could also be that different pianos naturally sound more or less woody, more or less metallic and so on.

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Key Fumbler wrote:

it's hard to get over the perception bias that the latest has to be the best as it is the most recently developed.

Hehe, well speaking as someone who's new to ALL these instruments (and didn't know their release timeline when evaluating), I feel bold enough to say that it's not your bias speaking - the Kawai and Bosendorfer were the most realistic-sounding, and playable, to me too.

I'm a bit skeptical when I hear claims that these still sound "synthetic" - I mean, compared to what, right? A sample library with unavoidable room acoustics built in? A real acoustic that's perfectly coupled to your own room's resonances? A recording that's gone through multiple rounds of mixing and enhancements? I think that the disconnect people perceive with these models is in the post-processing / the reintegration with the acoustic context, not the models themselves.

Speaking for myself, if I listened to a perfectly dry recording of a perfectly tuned acoustic grand on headphones, I'd think it's plastic, too!

Reply by dikrek

  • Avatar
  • dikrek
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 06-02-2023
  • Posts: 171

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:
Key Fumbler wrote:

it's hard to get over the perception bias that the latest has to be the best as it is the most recently developed.

Hehe, well speaking as someone who's new to ALL these instruments (and didn't know their release timeline when evaluating), I feel bold enough to say that it's not your bias speaking - the Kawai and Bosendorfer were the most realistic-sounding, and playable, to me too.

I'm a bit skeptical when I hear claims that these still sound "synthetic" - I mean, compared to what, right? A sample library with unavoidable room acoustics built in? A real acoustic that's perfectly coupled to your own room's resonances? A recording that's gone through multiple rounds of mixing and enhancements? I think that the disconnect people perceive with these models is in the post-processing / the reintegration with the acoustic context, not the models themselves.

Speaking for myself, if I listened to a perfectly dry recording of a perfectly tuned acoustic grand on headphones, I'd think it's plastic, too!

I had a choice of one extra instrument when doing the upgrade from stage to standard and went Bösendorfer. The lower register is the most convincing of all models (and I use that a lot).

You can tweak the rest with unison etc. but hard to fix the lower register on other models.

Reply by dikrek

  • Avatar
  • dikrek
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 06-02-2023
  • Posts: 171

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:
Key Fumbler wrote:

it's hard to get over the perception bias that the latest has to be the best as it is the most recently developed.

Hehe, well speaking as someone who's new to ALL these instruments (and didn't know their release timeline when evaluating), I feel bold enough to say that it's not your bias speaking - the Kawai and Bosendorfer were the most realistic-sounding, and playable, to me too.

I'm a bit skeptical when I hear claims that these still sound "synthetic" - I mean, compared to what, right? A sample library with unavoidable room acoustics built in? A real acoustic that's perfectly coupled to your own room's resonances? A recording that's gone through multiple rounds of mixing and enhancements? I think that the disconnect people perceive with these models is in the post-processing / the reintegration with the acoustic context, not the models themselves.

Speaking for myself, if I listened to a perfectly dry recording of a perfectly tuned acoustic grand on headphones, I'd think it's plastic, too!

Here is a non-standard version of Gnossienne (not mine) - various models compared plus the sample-based Modern D.

Perhaps just listen from minute 6 to 6:30

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/jof7u5y0...t=d07r12bl

I think Pianoteq holds its own.

Reply by Pianistically

  • Avatar
  • Pianistically
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 12-07-2023
  • Posts: 213

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

dikrek wrote:
daniel_r328 wrote:
Key Fumbler wrote:

it's hard to get over the perception bias that the latest has to be the best as it is the most recently developed.

Hehe, well speaking as someone who's new to ALL these instruments (and didn't know their release timeline when evaluating), I feel bold enough to say that it's not your bias speaking - the Kawai and Bosendorfer were the most realistic-sounding, and playable, to me too.

I'm a bit skeptical when I hear claims that these still sound "synthetic" - I mean, compared to what, right? A sample library with unavoidable room acoustics built in? A real acoustic that's perfectly coupled to your own room's resonances? A recording that's gone through multiple rounds of mixing and enhancements? I think that the disconnect people perceive with these models is in the post-processing / the reintegration with the acoustic context, not the models themselves.

Speaking for myself, if I listened to a perfectly dry recording of a perfectly tuned acoustic grand on headphones, I'd think it's plastic, too!

Here is a non-standard version of Gnossienne (not mine) - various models compared plus the sample-based Modern D.

Perhaps just listen from minute 6 to 6:30

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/jof7u5y0...t=d07r12bl

I think Pianoteq holds its own.

Absolutely! It actually incredible when you think it is 100% modelled .

Reply by aWc

  • Avatar
  • aWc
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Montréal, Québec
  • Registered: 05-09-2018
  • Posts: 331

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Hi Daniel, welcome to the Forum!

I am not classically trained, more a self-taught improviser and composer. Interestingly, your top choices are almost identical to mine!.
For the longest time, the Steingraeber model was my fave. I used it in most of my recordings...until the Bosendorfer came out. I like the Kawai too, but not as much as the Bose. The Steinway models are great and accurate, but somehow I don't choose them so often in renderings. All the other models have various qualities, but I find they belong to a second-tier category compared to the aforementioned top tier models. Of course, all this is highly subjective and depends a lot on the type of controller used for Pianoteq. Nowadays, I use a W. Hoffmann P206 midified grand to record in Pianoteq, so the choice of Pianoteq model only comes when I finalize and render the MIDI recordings. I also use audio recordings of the actual grand...but it is a much more difficult task to capture hi-quality audio (room acoustics, microphones, ambient noises, etc) and editing audio as opposed to MIDI, hence the power of Pianoteq...

PT 7.3 with Steinway B and D, U4 upright, YC5, Bechstein DG, Steingraeber, Ant. Petrov, Kremsegg Collection #2, Electric Pianos and Hohner Collection. http://antoinewcaron.com

aWc's Website

Reply by Pianophile

  • Avatar
  • Pianophile
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 07-06-2007
  • Posts: 238

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:

Hi all,

First post here after some lurking . I’m Daniel, a (mostly) self-taught classical pianist. A little while ago I was looking to buy a small acoustic grand piano and send my ancient Roland HP-300e into well-deserved retirement; but after spending a few weekends in London’s piano stores, I discovered how far digital hybrids have come; and I discovered Pianoteq, which completely sold me on the dream of having multiple concert-level grands to choose from.

Now, while I await the delivery of my shiny Kawai NV10s, I’ve been trying to pick which piano models I should get for Pianoteq. I wanted to share the views I formed during many hours with the demo, in case it’ll help others in the same situation.

[...]

Hope that was useful - if you have other views to share I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Interesting post! The SK-EX is my favourite Pianoteq model too. I use it all the time for classical music. I'm quite fond of the Grotrian too. I have a real Grotrian G-192 from 1990. It's very special indeed, and the Pianoteq model does capture some of the Grotrian magic. Sadly, Grotrian went bankrupt earlier this year, and the factory in Braunschweig closed down.

Coincidentally, I tried out some digital pianos last week at a local store and ended up liking the Kawai NV5s and NV10s the most. Congratulations on buying the NV10s; it's very nice indeed. I'm considering the NV5s as a secondary instrument / Pianoteq controller. It gave the most compelling sense of sitting in front a real instrument.

I was a bit shocked to find how much better the actions on the NV5s and NV10s are than on any other digital piano I've tried, including the high-end Roland ones (i.e. LX-6 and LX-9), and including the CA-901. The Yamaha 'hybrid' pianos have great actions too but I don't like their sound very much.

Last edited by Pianophile (28-07-2025 20:04)

Reply by Pianophile

  • Avatar
  • Pianophile
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 07-06-2007
  • Posts: 238

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:

I'm a bit skeptical when I hear claims that these still sound "synthetic" - I mean, compared to what, right? A sample library with unavoidable room acoustics built in? A real acoustic that's perfectly coupled to your own room's resonances? A recording that's gone through multiple rounds of mixing and enhancements? I think that the disconnect people perceive with these models is in the post-processing / the reintegration with the acoustic context, not the models themselves.

Speaking for myself, if I listened to a perfectly dry recording of a perfectly tuned acoustic grand on headphones, I'd think it's plastic, too!

I totally agree. The 'Pianoteq debates' on internet forums are exceedingly tiresome. It's incontrovertible that Pianoteq is superior to any other piano VST in terms of sympathetic resonance, pedal resonance, interaction between notes, overall sonic cohesion et cetera. These are crucial aspects of any realistic piano sound. In the past, sampled instruments were a bit more realistic in terms of basic timbre (i.e. what does it sound like when you hit, say, middle C in isolation) but I don't think that's the case any more. To me, the timbre of the Pianoteq SK-EX sounds as realistic as that of any sampled piano, yet without all of the frustrating, fundamental and insoluble shortcomings of samples.

Reply by Pianophile

  • Avatar
  • Pianophile
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 07-06-2007
  • Posts: 238

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

dikrek wrote:

Here is a non-standard version of Gnossienne (not mine) - various models compared plus the sample-based Modern D.

Perhaps just listen from minute 6 to 6:30

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/jof7u5y0...t=d07r12bl

I think Pianoteq holds its own.

It more than holds its own. In fact, the shortcomings of the modern D are quite clear to my ears (though I should add that this is not a blind test): the chords in the left hand don't blend with the right-hand melody. This 'sonic cohesion' problem is the bane of all sampled pianos I've tried. They're fine for basic piano parts in pop songs, and perhaps some cinematic music, but not for serious classical playing.

Last edited by Pianophile (28-07-2025 19:59)

Reply by dikrek

  • Avatar
  • dikrek
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 06-02-2023
  • Posts: 171

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Pianophile wrote:
dikrek wrote:

Here is a non-standard version of Gnossienne (not mine) - various models compared plus the sample-based Modern D.

Perhaps just listen from minute 6 to 6:30

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/jof7u5y0...t=d07r12bl

I think Pianoteq holds its own.

It more than holds its own. In fact, the shortcomings of the modern D are quite clear to my ears (though I should add that this is not a blind test): the chords in the left hand don't blend with the right-hand melody. This 'sonic cohesion' problem is the bane of all sampled pianos I've tried. They're fine for basic piano parts in pop songs, and perhaps some cinematic music, but not for serious classical playing.

From all the samples, which one did you end up liking the most?

Reply by kawai_user3535

  • Avatar
  • kawai_user3535
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 26-06-2024
  • Posts: 16

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

I love my NV5s but as a MIDI controller I think it has a fatal flaw: lack of support for MIDI 2.0 and lack of note off velocity sensors. (I may one day try to remedy this on mine by overhauling the sensors with a retrofitted MIDI system of some kind.)

The onboard sounds in my opinion can't compete with Pianoteq. While individual notes sound great (perhaps even stronger than most Pianoteq models in the bass), it feels lifeless to play because there's comparatively very little tonal variety you can get out of it.

Reply by Pianophile

  • Avatar
  • Pianophile
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 07-06-2007
  • Posts: 238

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

dikrek wrote:

From all the samples, which one did you end up liking the most?

I don't really use any of them anymore; software pianos one thing I've definitely spent too much money on... The only really solid buy was Pianoteq, which I've used for 18 years.

I liked the Garritan CFX for a while but its problems became pretty obvious after a while (the noise buildup is one, as well as overblown, weird-sounding sympathetic resonance).

I did buy the VI Labs Modern D but fail to see what all the enthusiasm is about. It's a well-sampled, nice-sounding piano, really useful for certain purposes (including certain kinds of jazz) but, once gain, unsuitable for serious classical playing.

Some of the VI Labs True Keys pianos had quite a nice timbre, but resonance was pretty bad. I didn't get on at all with the Synchron pianos when I tried them a year or so ago.

I haven't tried Synthogy Ivory 3. I've heard some nice-sounding demos by people on forums. I didn't like Synthogy 2 very much.

A problem with sampled pianos is also that they're essentially abandonware: they're released, followed by a few updates to fix basic problems, and that's it.

Reply by Pianophile

  • Avatar
  • Pianophile
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 07-06-2007
  • Posts: 238

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

kawai_user3535 wrote:

I love my NV5s but as a MIDI controller I think it has a fatal flaw: lack of support for MIDI 2.0 and lack of note off velocity sensors. (I may one day try to remedy this on mine by overhauling the sensors with a retrofitted MIDI system of some kind.)

The onboard sounds in my opinion can't compete with Pianoteq. While individual notes sound great (perhaps even stronger than most Pianoteq models in the bass), it feels lifeless to play because there's comparatively very little tonal variety you can get out of it.

Interesting. I'd noticed the lack of note-off support too. How big a problem is this?

I did find the NV5s quite expressive, partly as a result of the soundboard -- but of course I've only tried it for half an hour at a store. Have you tried the NV10s?

Reply by kawai_user3535

  • Avatar
  • kawai_user3535
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 26-06-2024
  • Posts: 16

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Pianophile wrote:
kawai_user3535 wrote:

I love my NV5s but as a MIDI controller I think it has a fatal flaw: lack of support for MIDI 2.0 and lack of note off velocity sensors. (I may one day try to remedy this on mine by overhauling the sensors with a retrofitted MIDI system of some kind.)

The onboard sounds in my opinion can't compete with Pianoteq. While individual notes sound great (perhaps even stronger than most Pianoteq models in the bass), it feels lifeless to play because there's comparatively very little tonal variety you can get out of it.

Interesting. I'd noticed the lack of note-off support too. How big a problem is this?

I did find the NV5s quite expressive, partly as a result of the soundboard -- but of course I've only tried it for half an hour at a store. Have you tried the NV10s?

I haven't had an opportunity to try the NV10, unfortunately.

How big a problem is the lack of note-off velocities (in both NV5 and NV10)? Hard to say without having ever tried it _with_. I would imagine the note-off velocities would lend a slight, maybe even hardly noticeable extra bit of realism during normal playing (an element of humanization), and that there are subtle or even not-so-subtle effects you could use it for on occasion in more advanced or experimental playing. But for me, playing at an intermediate level, I'm fully satisfied with the NV5 as is for the time being, I agree that it's quite expressive when paired with Pianoteq. Just missing this extra support that I really wish they could have thrown in. As a top-of-the-line digital instrument they really _should_ have it to complete the package.

Last edited by kawai_user3535 (28-07-2025 22:26)

Reply by dikrek

  • Avatar
  • dikrek
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 06-02-2023
  • Posts: 171

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Pianophile wrote:
dikrek wrote:

From all the samples, which one did you end up liking the most?

I don't really use any of them anymore; software pianos one thing I've definitely spent too much money on... The only really solid buy was Pianoteq, which I've used for 18 years.

I liked the Garritan CFX for a while but its problems became pretty obvious after a while (the noise buildup is one, as well as overblown, weird-sounding sympathetic resonance).

I did buy the VI Labs Modern D but fail to see what all the enthusiasm is about. It's a well-sampled, nice-sounding piano, really useful for certain purposes (including certain kinds of jazz) but, once gain, unsuitable for serious classical playing.

Some of the VI Labs True Keys pianos had quite a nice timbre, but resonance was pretty bad. I didn't get on at all with the Synchron pianos when I tried them a year or so ago.

I haven't tried Synthogy Ivory 3. I've heard some nice-sounding demos by people on forums. I didn't like Synthogy 2 very much.

A problem with sampled pianos is also that they're essentially abandonware: they're released, followed by a few updates to fix basic problems, and that's it.

I meant which did you like of the audio samples I provided

I thought I settled on 280VC but oscilating between that and Kawai.

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

kawai_user3535 wrote:

How big a problem is the lack of note-off velocities (in both NV5 and NV10)? [...]

Adding my 2ct to this... In a real acoustic, if you release a key slowly, the damper will approach the string gradually, meaning you could hear an attenuation of the note before it gets fully silenced. What's more, you could hold a key in a not-fully-released position and even bring it down again, which you could use to shape the decay curve and bring out some overtones.

But you can also get a very similar effect by half-pedalling the Sustain pedal, which will raise and lower the damper in the same way (but also add sympathetic resonance from the other half-dampened strings). I just tried that and feel Pianoteq simulates the string responses to partial attenuation pretty well!

Release velocity would help simulate the key-release effect in part because you could e.g. use it to set the damping duration for the given key (that's what the note-off velocity curve seems to be controlling?)... but that's not quite the same thing, as it doesn't allow you to go back and forth.

For my purposes, I prefer controlling release with the pedal when I need to. In my (myopic classical-music) playing, I've not come across a need to control two different decay curves on two different keys at the same time (interjection: it just occurred to me that you could probably accomplish this with a gradual sustenuto paired with the graudal sustain... but anyway), and I find the release easier to control via the pedal, than via the keys.

All of which is a mouthful to say, for the explicit purpose of non-avant-garde piano playing, I don't feel release velocity is that big of a deal.

I agree though that the NV10s (and 5s) aren't the best general-purpose midi-controllers available, not that they try to be. This pianoworld post I read a while ago complains that pressing the keys very softly doesn't generate a signal... but that is is just how the hammers work in an acoustic piano, as they need a minimum amount of push to reach the string. That's good for making the playing piano-like, but for other types of instruments, you may not want that.

kawai_user3535 wrote:

The onboard sounds in my opinion can't compete with Pianoteq.

Ah, that's good to know! Probably means I'll have to add the Pianoteq SK-EX to my roster as well, then. I shall try and prepare myself emotionally

Pianophile wrote:

I did find the NV5s quite expressive, partly as a result of the soundboard

I was able to play both back-to-back in the store (as well as some early intermediate acoustic grands, and the Yamaha AvantGrand lineup). In terms of sound, I liked them both; as you say, the soundboard does a lot to ensure that the sound comes from where you would expect it. If you blindfolded me, I'd be hard-pressed to recognise that I wasn't sitting at an acoustic. The NV10s goes a different route, projecting its main tweeters and woofers upwards, and that worked really well for me: the indirect projection made the sound feel like it was coming from a larger body. It didn't sound as mighty/enveloping as an acoustic grand would -- how could it -- but I also wouldn't say that it sounded less good/organic than the NV5s with its soundboard. My impression was that the difference in sound lies in projection, not quality.

But the key action on both blew me away. Bear in mind that I had been trying out half a dozen acoustic grands that day, and the NV10S simply delivered the real thing in terms of feel. The NV5s did just as good a job implementing an upright action. It felt pretty weird playing a grand on the NV5s, and an upright on the NV10S, and because, as I said, I'm not one for uprights, the choice was obvious for me. My conclusion is neither is better than the other. It comes down to which action you prefer, and if you'd rather have 100% of the sound experience of an upright piano, or 60% of the sound experience of a grand (90% with good headphones).

Last edited by daniel_r328 (28-07-2025 23:52)

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

dikrek wrote:

I had a choice of one extra instrument when doing the upgrade from stage to standard and went Bösendorfer. The lower register is the most convincing of all models (and I use that a lot).

You can tweak the rest with unison etc. but hard to fix the lower register on other models.

Hey dikrek, thanks for the idea of tweaking the tuning and design parameters. I gave that a spin this evening and managed to bring the Bosendorfer's mids closer to my liking while maintaining the authority of its bass. Pretty happy with the result! Now it feels like I got the best of both worlds.

By the way on the Gnosserie links you shared, I agree that the Kawai and Bosendorfer render the music the best - both have very convincing presence. I'm not all that against samples in principle, but the The Modern D track is the weakest of the bunch to me. The repeated notes sound too similar and their velocity too quantised (I don't think that's solvable with round-robin samples: notes sound different when struck while they are already swinging).

I couldn't say whether The Bosendorfer or the Kawai is better in this case, but I could say the Kawai is better matched to this particular performance: the Kawai's definition helps keep the structure intact during the more freeform bits of play, and because it feels a bit lighter, the accerations sound more plausible.

Reply by dikrek

  • Avatar
  • dikrek
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 06-02-2023
  • Posts: 171

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:
dikrek wrote:

I had a choice of one extra instrument when doing the upgrade from stage to standard and went Bösendorfer. The lower register is the most convincing of all models (and I use that a lot).

You can tweak the rest with unison etc. but hard to fix the lower register on other models.

Hey dikrek, thanks for the idea of tweaking the tuning and design parameters. I gave that a spin this evening and managed to bring the Bosendorfer's mids closer to my liking while maintaining the authority of its bass. Pretty happy with the result! Now it feels like I got the best of both worlds.

By the way on the Gnosserie links you shared, I agree that the Kawai and Bosendorfer render the music the best - both have very convincing presence. I'm not all that against samples in principle, but the The Modern D track is the weakest of the bunch to me. The repeated notes sound too similar and their velocity too quantised (I don't think that's solvable with round-robin samples: notes sound different when struck while they are already swinging).

I couldn't say whether The Bosendorfer or the Kawai is better in this case, but I could say the Kawai is better matched to this particular performance: the Kawai's definition helps keep the structure intact during the more freeform bits of play, and because it feels a bit lighter, the accerations sound more plausible.

Thanks. What settings did you change on the Bösendorfer? Try unison at 2.

Reply by Pianophile

  • Avatar
  • Pianophile
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 07-06-2007
  • Posts: 238

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

dikrek wrote:

I meant which did you like of the audio samples I provided

I thought I settled on 280VC but oscilating between that and Kawai.

Ah, I see. Same here; the Bösendorfer and the Shigeru Kawai work reallly well with this piece.!

Reply by Pianophile

  • Avatar
  • Pianophile
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 07-06-2007
  • Posts: 238

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:

All of which is a mouthful to say, for the explicit purpose of non-avant-garde piano playing, I don't feel release velocity is that big of a deal.

I did a test with different key-off velocities for single notes played with identities velocities and I couldn't detect any differences. Perhaps there are microscopic differences in  more complex playing contexts?

daniel_r328 wrote:

But the key action on both blew me away. Bear in mind that I had been trying out half a dozen acoustic grands that day, and the NV10S simply delivered the real thing in terms of feel. The NV5s did just as good a job implementing an upright action. It felt pretty weird playing a grand on the NV5s, and an upright on the NV10S, and because, as I said, I'm not one for uprights, the choice was obvious for me. My conclusion is neither is better than the other. It comes down to which action you prefer, and if you'd rather have 100% of the sound experience of an upright piano, or 60% of the sound experience of a grand (90% with good headphones).

I had a similar experience. The NV5s does a great job of reproducing the experience of playing an upright (albeit with a grand piano sound), while the NV10s does a less effective job mimicking the experience of playing a grand piano (for which you'd need a much larger cabinet, with a much more elaborate speaker array).

The action on both is the best I've seen on digital pianos, and the NV5s felt better to me than the Grand Feel III on the CA901, even though this has a longer pivot length than the NV5s. So pivot length in and of itself is not a decisive factor; it's the total design that matters. Both Novus models have just the right sense of inertia, weight and resistance.

Last edited by Pianophile (02-08-2025 13:53)

Reply by Pianophile

  • Avatar
  • Pianophile
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 07-06-2007
  • Posts: 238

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

About note-off velocity: you can create some rather pronounced effects by changing the note-off velocity curve in Pianoteq.

The default curve is 127 as the effective key release speed for all note-off velocities (so a flat line at 127). In this case, there indeed isn't any difference in sound for different key-off velocities.

But if you have a perfect diagonal line, you can even have an effective note-off velocity of 0, in which case the key isn't released at all and keeps ringing.

This makes me wonder what the ideal, most realistic velocity curve would be.

Last edited by Pianophile (04-08-2025 21:24)

Reply by kawai_user3535

  • Avatar
  • kawai_user3535
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 26-06-2024
  • Posts: 16

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Pianophile wrote:

This makes me wonder what the ideal, most realistic [note-off] velocity curve would be.

In a sense it will never be fully realistic as currently implemented, because the program doesn't know the note-off velocity until the note has been fully released. So there will always be a latency. Whereas on an acoustic piano, it's a continuous process -- you can start off lifting your finger slowly and then release quickly for the rest of the key release, and you can hear the note decaying as you lift. In Pianoteq you don't hear the key-release effect until it's finished happening. Or at least that's the way I understand it; I don't have that ability on my NV5s (the only keyboard I have right now) to try it out myself. If Pianoteq one day implements a real-time note release effect one day (probably not possible even with MIDI 2.0 I would think), that would be a dream come true.

Although it's a subtle thing, I think of it this way. What are the things limiting you from achieving the full experience of playing an acoustic piano? The action of your keyboard. The quality of modeling/sampling software. Your speakers. The variables you have at your disposal via different sensors in your keyboard -- key strike velocity (0 to 127 or continuous-valued?), pedal on/off and velocity, resonance effects, etc. And note-off velocity is one of those variables. Whatever progress we're going to see in modeling software in coming years, you can only take advantage of it to the extent that your hardware allows.

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

I was thinking about this, and wonder if key release is the right model for this. Since release velocity is just one value at one point in time, it can't represent the exact movement of your key over time, eg. Whether you raise it slowly, or hold it at half release, etc.

If you could map key position to aftertouch (which is a stream of values) that would be better. Pianoteq might already have the controls you need for this, essentially you'd want to instrument damper duration to aftertouch, for each key. The release velocity itself could still be used to scale key release noise and damper noise. That set up should bring you pretty close to the real thing.

I'm not sure how much application this would have in standard repertoire tho. Personally, I'd just be happy to have the damper and key release noises scale with attack velocity, rather than be set to a constant value

Reply by Pianophile

  • Avatar
  • Pianophile
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: The Netherlands
  • Registered: 07-06-2007
  • Posts: 238

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:

I was thinking about this, and wonder if key release is the right model for this. Since release velocity is just one value at one point in time, it can't represent the exact movement of your key over time, eg. Whether you raise it slowly, or hold it at half release, etc.

If you could map key position to aftertouch (which is a stream of values) that would be better. Pianoteq might already have the controls you need for this, essentially you'd want to instrument damper duration to aftertouch, for each key. The release velocity itself could still be used to scale key release noise and damper noise. That set up should bring you pretty close to the real thing.

I'm not sure how much application this would have in standard repertoire tho. Personally, I'd just be happy to have the damper and key release noises scale with attack velocity, rather than be set to a constant value

Interesting points. I've now adjusted the note-off velocity curve so that it tracks exactly to the note-off velocity value sent by my VPC1. In practice, it seems to make at best a highly subtle difference, not really noticeable during normal playing.

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Hey all, I promised an update once I had set up Pianoteq with the NV10S. It took me a little while to get the configuration to a good place - out of the box, the experience was a bit disheartening. But by getting a sufficiently precise room correction eq and reverb matching, fine tuning the velocity curve and carefully upgrading the signal chain, I managed to get it to a place where the sound from the speakers roughly match the headphone experience (which is very good).

Q: How does the lack of key-off velocity affect things? To test that, I wrote a script that would cause the release velocity to match the preceding attack velocity… and I didn’t really like the result. It did, as expected, modify damper effectiveness so that the keys would be silenced more slowly, but I couldn’t make this correspond with any playing intent. I decided I can live without it

Q: How does the built-in sound compare to Pianoteq’s Kawai model? The built-in instruments are outstandingly playable sample libraries with some harmonic resonance modelling built on top. If kawai were to release this as a VST, people would rave about it as much as they rave about the Garritan. Part of this playability is achieved by flattening the samples: attacks are cleaner, decays quicker, resonances tamer than they would be on a real instrument, in part to more clearly translate the playing intent to sound. So overall, very very good job with these sounds. But to cut a long story short, Pianoteq is way better. It manages to maintain the complexities of an acoustic grand without muddying the player intent, and sounds a lot more organic as a consequence. You can’t go back to the built-in sounds after this. The main differences is in long sustained chords, which bloom much more convincingly in Pianoteq, and very fast, technical passages where the “secondary” resonances begin to outweigh the direct sounds: in a sample library, this starts to sound like “black midi” - like soundfiles that get clipped to early - and in pianoteq, it sounds like a continuous recording of multiple notes, because striking a note for a second time doesn’t stop and restart a sound: it modifies an ongoing sound. So at the risk of coming to an overly safe conclusion, it’s a slam dunk for Pianoteq.

Q: How close to an acoustic grand is the sound? So here we get philosophical: Should it sound like I’m playing a concert grand in a concert hall, or like I’m driving a well mastered piano recording, or like I put a concert grand in my way-too-small living room, where it would sound way too squeaky? In other words, am I chasing “good” or “real” sound? For my purposes, I was more interested in the latter, and I had to apply a lot of config and hacks to get there. To briefly summarise, I:

- applied room EQ to the speakers (which needed very aggressive correction)
- matched the reverb the natural acoustics of my living room
- muffled/dispersed the tweeters and coupled the woofer to the drywall behind the NV10S to create soundboard-like dispersion
- put a well-overspecc’d DAC and cable in front of the Kawai’s line-in and spent time optimising gain stages
- Tried different sample rate combinations

It turns out that the built-in speakers are actually very good but not well configured (I tried connecting an external sub but it didn't add much - the built-in woofer is capable for piano sounds). Applying the right corrections helped me produce a convincing organic sound with good mechanical rumble and envelopment. If I imagine a living-room sized grand piano that somehow creates the sound of a concert-grand sized one, I would say the Kawai could fool me in a blind test - it is 90-95% there, way better than I had expected or hoped.

Q: Any more thoughts on the piano models? I continue to think that the Pianoteq SK-EX is exceptional; now that I know how much of an upgrade it is from the built-in sounds, I’ll probably have to get it. The other new development is that I like the U4 more and more - especially with a good speaker system, it sells an upright geometry very well. I still don’t love uprights in general but in the interest of becoming a more versatile player, this might just be my gateway into that world. Playing with the Steinways, I am warming up to them more and more. They have their own voice and it’s been a pleasure getting to know them. In fact, I’m playing them a little more often than the Bosendorfer, which on paper is my favourite. The Bechstein sounds better in the set-up that I have now than it did during my initial evaluation, and I keep flip-flopping between it and my Steingraeber. Jury’s still out on that one. One surprise is that I really enjoy the historical pianos. I can hear their quirks more clearly with the set up I have now, so I can sense more of a connection to the unique instrument that is modelled. I like playing pieces on time-appropriate models as a pallet-cleanser/for inspiration, which is helping bridge the ages a little bit better.

Q: Would you recommend it? Yes, 100%. For my needs, the Novus NV10S is the perfect combination once configured well. I feel I have better access to acoustic musicality with this set up than I would have with with a small, factory-made acoustic grand, which was my initial intention to get. The high-quality keyboard action on the NV10S does the heavy lifting, but a well-configured Pianoteq instance elevates this set-up from an uneasy compromise to a clear winner.

Last edited by daniel_r328 (19-08-2025 11:57)

Reply by dv

  • Avatar
  • dv
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 01-11-2021
  • Posts: 351

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

daniel_r328 wrote:

Hey all, I promised an update once I had set up Pianoteq with the NV10S.

Wow, thanks. For people with a similar instrument (or intention to purchase one -- neither or which is me), can you share more technical details. For example:

- room dimensions, floor kind and furniture (relevant for next)
- software used for EQ and values (frequency and attenuation values) -- I know this will need to be different in different rooms but given your "aggressive" configuration, I suspect that the majority comes from the NV10S speaker response and only a small part from the room setting
- selected DAC and cables
- velocity profile (if changed) and other pianoteq settings if different from default
- how you muffled the twitters and how you coupled the woofers
- anything else you would need to tell to somebody trying to replicate what you have done

Thanks again, excellent work!

Where do I find a list of all posts I upvoted? :(

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

dv wrote:

can you share more technical details

Hey, sure! I'm happy that this is of interest, let me get a bit more into the practical detail

Room set up and EQ:

This is a room 5m*10m room with soft furnishings, the piano is close to one of the corners. I know from setting up my speaker systems that there aren't particularly crazy acoustics going on, so you suspicion that most of the correction would be caused by speaker internals is likely on point. Reading this post and confirming that the NV10s has the same components as the NV10, I can see that the cross-over routing is the weakest link in the chain. I used Kushview Elements as my VST host, and linked the left and right channels into separate 16-band AUNBandEQ instances (the PEQ that's installed by default on Mac). Here are the parameters I ended up with:

https://imgur.com/a/ioydlyu

Even though there's pretty deep cuts there, I noticed that even small changes to the parameters would make the sound artificial. For it to sound like an acoustic grand, the integration into the room acoustics had to be pretty seamless. So my guess is that you won't get good results if you copy my values - you'l probably have to measure your own room correction. Briefly, here's how I did that:

I used a calibration mic (UMIK-1, highly recommended), which I centered exactly between the speakers, on my piano bench, at ear height. I recorded a couple of measurement sweeps in Room EQ Wizard (learning that app is its own can of worms, but this video helped me get started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYMQ6M-Z5rM). I also took additional measurements slightly to the left and right to create vector averages so that I could get good results when I move around as I play. Room EQ Wizard can automatically fit EQ parameters to match your signal to a target curve, and I found that using the DrToole target curve (which is almost flat) gave me a good compromise of sounding "good" and "real". A more obvious choice like a harman curve sounded a bit too processed and cinematic to me. Again, I was surprised how even miniscule changes would have a big impact on the results, especially considering the amplitude of the corrections. I experimented and got the best results by measuring and correcting the left and right channel separately.

I didn't apply any room treatment, because after the eq correction, any remaining resonances felt natural, and similar to what you would get from an acoustic grand.

I tried to manually tweak the eq parameters here and there but found that while I could make notes sound "better", they lost a bit of their "natural" feel, so I ended up sticking with the automatically matched parameters.

Signal chain gear

After a bit of research I went with the Topping D50 III DAC, which has a reputation for extremely neutral and close-to-reference processing. In hifi-terms, it's modestly priced, but honestly for the purpose it's pretty overspeccd. A Topping E30 II would have been more than enough. Cable-wise, it was all about finding a short, well shielded cable; in my case, this one did a fine job. The signal chain is not perfect - when you put the volume to maximum, you can clearly hear white noise from interference being picked up - but when you adjust the volume to a level that won't take your ears off, not only can you not hear the noise directly, it also doesn't colour the tails of decays in any perceivable way.

It annoyed me that I needed to produce a high quality analog signal just to have it redigitised by a mid-tier ADC (96khz/24bit according to my research) so I spent a bit of time seeing if I could feed the line signal from my DAC straight to the speaker amplifiers. I think theoretically there is a way, but I would also have to create a combined and filtered mono signal for the woofer, so I left that rabbit hole for another day. I bet it would improve the signal quality a bit though.

The trick was to feed as "hot" a signal as possible - ie make the incoming volume as loud as I can without running into clipping. This keeps the signal strong relative to the noise levels.

Pianoteq changes

My go-to velocity curve is as follows (based on the memory of playing acoustics; I hope I'll have the chance to fine tune this when I can compare instruments side by side):

Global Velocity = [0, 12, 60, 80, 100, 112, 127; 0, 3, 32, 64, 96, 122, 127]

Apart from that, one thing that really helped me fit the sound into the room was to match the reverb to the natural acoustics of my room ("Dry room" preset with duration bumped to 30ms, and mix at 0dB). I experimented with recording an impulse response of my room and load that into the reverb effect, but this ended up having too much distortion to be workable; but in principle it seemed to head in the right direction, so maybe I'll revisit this.

Finally as a point of personal preference, I disabled the phase flip in the Delay effect - my ears register these phase flips as a telltale of digital processing and so I found the illusion of an acoustic grand more convincing without it.

Speaker modding

Oh, I had to bring out some advanced audiophile gear for this one... just kidding, I covered the tweeters with two heavy books, and redid the room correction afterwards to make sure the muffling is not too extreme. The main effect of this was that it spread the perceived source of higher-frequency sounds around enough to trick my ears into thinking it comes from a larger, diffuse, resonating body, as opposed to a point source.

Coupling the piano to the wall was a similarly advanced technique: I wedged an old wooden chopping board between the back of the piano and the wall. I felt silly doing it and I feel silly writing it now, but it really worked. I experimented with different positions and found that the center of the piano, which happens to align with a fixed point of the drywall, works best.

By the way, obviously a section of drywall doesn't have the same colouration as a piece of fine tonewood, as a soundboard would be made of. But that's fine - the colouration has already been done by the pianoteq model. We don't want additional colouring, we just want effective dispersion - and it turns out that even humble materials can be quite good at this. See this video for another rabbit hole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdkyGDqU7xA

Reply by kawai_user3535

  • Avatar
  • kawai_user3535
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 26-06-2024
  • Posts: 16

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

Very interesting and probably useful, thanks. As an NV5 owner I agree with all your assessment of the onboard sound engine vs. Pianoteq. As for the EQ and everything, I've been satisfied already with the sound in my living room (fairly small room with hardwood floor, a high ceiling, sparse furnishing), but this has inspired me to try some of these things and see if I can make it even better.

I'm not going to mess with the actual speakers though. There's probably no need, on the NV5. Back when I was shopping, I remember a selling point of the NV5 versus the NV10 was better sound, largely due to the built-in soundboard. People often complained the sound of the NV10 left something to be desired. It sounds like you've completely remedied that.

Last edited by kawai_user3535 (20-08-2025 18:14)

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 21

Re: Piano models for classical music - my picks

kawai_user3535 wrote:

I remember a selling point of the NV5 versus the NV10 was better sound, largely due to the built-in soundboard.

I can believe that; one thing I learned in this process is that sound dispersion is more important to realism than sheer sound quality (at least to me), and a soundboard will be very good at that. The other thing the NV5 has going for it is that you don't have a direct sightline to the speakers, which avoids that "speaker point source" effect I was battling. Luckily it was easy enough to remedy these gripes on the NV10s... still, it's good that your NV5 doesn't have them in the first place.