Topic: Humanising Strike Points

Pteq keeps surprising me. After a few months use, I've just found the humanise function after right clicking the strike point control.

Well after some twidlling I'm pleased with its effects.

I started to wonder though...on a particularly good quality grand piano, what kind of random variation would be seen in terms of the strike point?
I guess on uprights there will be more variation owing to the length of travel of the hammer arm, compared to a grand.

I also started to wonder what else is going on with real pianos when the hammer repeatedly strikes the string at the same velocity; for example, what kinds of effect come from a hammer striking an already vibrating string?

Re: Humanising Strike Points

fulvia wrote:

I started to wonder though...on a particularly good quality grand piano, what kind of random variation would be seen in terms of the strike point?

No variation at all! (Well, this is debatable, but anyway no more than extremely small.)

We designed the strike point variation model when we created the cimbalom add-on, for which of course it makes full sense. But then came the natural question: why not extending this feature to other instruments?

After all, a long time ago, at the beginning of the pianoforte history, some people were claiming that pianoforte could never reach the richness in timbre variation of the cimbalom, the pantaleon and other similar hand stroked string instruments. The fixed striking point of the piano was considered a disadvantage! So, with this generalized feature, we are satisfying sort of an old dream of musicians

Re: Humanising Strike Points

Thanks for the information Philippe,

This has me wondering then; is programming a narrow width of randomisation of strike points on the Pteq grand pianos rather inauthentic? What I mean is that in my effort to try and create an authentic piano effect, am I actually lessening the realism?

I don't have a piano in the house, but my recollections tell me that when maintaining a steady repetitive strike on the same note, the timbre varies subtly on each strike, even when the velocity remains the same. Perhaps I'm just imagining this pedal down and thinking of some of the Minimalist piano pieces I've heard, (I'm thinking of a David Lang piece called "Face So Pale" played by Piano Circus. I'm sure it starts on just one a one note repetition).

Re: Humanising Strike Points

I think that programming a narrow width of randomisation of strike points doesn't make it necessarily inauthentic, because there is some overlap between the effect of varying the strike point and the effect of repeating notes: in both cases, although for different reasons, the harmonic content of the note is changed. Note that in Pianoteq, even when the strike point is kept constant, the sound changes slightly while repeating notes (of course more when the sustain pedal is down) because there is also a repetion model implemented.

Re: Humanising Strike Points

see here my post #6

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?id=1180

Re: Humanising Strike Points

Hello All,

The choice of strike point (location along the string's speaking length where the felt hammer contacts the string), as designed by any given piano manufacturer, is essentially fixed for any given model by the piano manufacturer. 

If you were to continuously vary the strike point of any given note, say G2, and listen repeatedly to that G note as the strike point is varied, you will hear a clear change in the degree of relative loudness in the harmonic overtone series.  At some strike points on certain strings, the octave harmonic is the most prominent overtone after the fundamental frequency;  at other strike points, one may hear a prominent interval of a twelfth (octave plus a fifth) or a nineteenth (two octaves plus a third), or you may hear combinations of these prominent overtones.

When listening to a freshly tuned grand piano, it is common to hear clusters of notes to each possess, say, a prominent overtone sounding an octave + fifth higher than the original tone.  Elsewhere along the same piano, you might hear a cluster of notes favoring the two-octave + major third.  Sorry to say, too many times, on lesser quality pianos, there seems to be little or no order of the prominent overtones sounding for adjacently played notes.

The reason I vary (slightly randomize) the strike points is to put some "life" into the Pianoteq sound, as you may have heard in my Campanella fxp.  Incidentally, as you vary the damper variables, and listen closely, you will also hear various harmonic contents associated with the releases of given notes.  Personally, one of the qualities that seems to give too "perfection" (in the negative sense) in many sample libraries is that the overtones and release harmonics are too, too regular and predictable.

Actually, I prefer to only subtly vary the strike points of pianos; in contrast, to the vibes, marimba, glockenspiel, cimbalom, etc., I prefer to widely vary the strike points.  This is because human hands are normally striking the vibrating surfaces, rather than mechanical linkages.  As such, when sampled vibes are played, they always seem to have the same overtone series -- duh! -- especially when hitting repeated notes.  This is a near impossibility in real life, and this quirk in sampled chromatic percussion instruments ... tends to make them sound "lifeless" to me, as compared to the real instruments, or Pianoteq instruments with highly variable strike points.

Cheers,

Joe

Re: Humanising Strike Points

Philippe Guillaume wrote:

Note that in Pianoteq, even when the strike point is kept constant, the sound changes slightly while repeating notes (of course more when the sustain pedal is down) because there is also a repetion model implemented.

I think that my idle curiosity around strike points does Pianoteq a dis-service. If I'd sat down first, experimented and carefully listened then I would have seen how you had already addressed this Phillipe.

It delights me that you have! But also I've learnt a good deal more about real pianos.