finally got to play Ivory... (Page 1 of 2)

Hi Hans,

Thanks for posting your view on this subject. I never got to play Ivory and was (am still) very curious to hear the difference. I am assuming that you were playing the first version of Ivory right? Was the transition between the layers really that obvious in Ivory?

Thanks again,

Niles

There was algorithm that claimed to be able to create seamless transition from one velocity strike to another:

-Pro Mega 3  from GEM   (GEM  RP700 and RP800 also have this feature)

-Akoustik piano, since first version

I ask:  Why happened that nobody talk about that today ???

Was it not good enough ? Not convincing ?

I tried the Promega back in 2004. It apparently had a physically modeled sound board and damper effect. I'm not sure how they achieved the seamless velocity. It's acoustic piano sound was very impressive. I understand the electric pianos and clav were entirely physically modeled. The rhodes had a bit of a digital sheen to it, but it was still very nice. I didn't buy it because it was rather pricey and the action wasn't great.

This model never seemed to catch on. I've read that the company went bankrupt in 2009 although you can still see their website. It doesn't appear to be updated though - perhaps it's paid ahead for some time?

I have three excellent acoustic grand pianos - Baldwin SD-10 9' and a Yamaha C7F being the best of the three. I love the PianoTeq - it is a piano of a different breed but wonderfully playable. I owned Ivory I, among other programs. For me, classically trained and 58 years of playing, Ivory, no matter how carefully tweaked, does not respond well. PianoTeq is the instrument of choice over all other software and module based piano products. I do wish that beyond sympathetic resonance that the fine engineers at Modartt find a way to express the wave pattern up/downs that occur when a note is struck. NO program or module does this at the current time. All you get is a note that when struck "flatlines" the tone from beginning to end. No "waviness". No subtle change and development of the sound takes place as it decays. If you get a chance and have a good acoustic grand and a PianoTeq loaded up, strike the same note on both and listen for the "wave". It's an "ear" opener.

I think I know what studiokids is referring to, and I'm not yet convinced it's purely the static tuning (or detuning) of the unisons, however it may well be something to do with the unisons wavering dynamically.  It's kind of like a vibrato, but it sort of comes and goes.  I agree that sampled pianos don't do this yet either.

Greg.

You could at least try out Ivory 2 at Try-Sounds:
http://www.try-sound.com/sort2.asp/pian...ynthogy/en

You'd need a mega computer though and good broadband connection. There is a lot of latency.

Hi folks!

This is my first post to this forum and I greatly appreciate the open athmosphere here....

I still have a ProMega or well..... the sound of the ProMega in terms of a hardware expander named GEM RP-X which has the same piano and e-piano sounds.

But I owned a ProMega3 - one of the latest that where produced - from Dec. 2006 until summer 2009 where I sold & replaced it with a master keyboard and the RP-X. Unfortunately, GEM went on the rocks, and the RP-X is not available anymore on the market. For me, it still has the best digital piano sound that was ever created.

Someone asked how they achieve seamless velocities.

Well, it is sort of an interpolation in frequency domain, with two samples at both ends of the velocity scale: min velocity and max velocity. The whole area in between is created with help of a complex dynamical filter algorithm. This is why you won't hear any velocity switching

The whole sound is then pumped through sort of a sound board model, giving it more life and spacial feel.

For playing the RP-X over headphones I __highly__ recommended to reduce stereo width of the signal, or it will feel like your head is placed inside of the piano furniture I use a self-made headphone amplifier with crossfeed for this purpose. (it is a combination of 2 projects: http://www.rock-grotto.co.uk/B-tech.htm and http://gilmore2.chem.northwestern.edu/p...r_prj.htm)

Basically, it there are two high quality concert grands in it: a Steinway D and a 10ft Fazioli.

I recently compared the RP-X Steinway to a 3,2GB Steinway sample library (NI New York) and was astonished how similar they sound. But the RP-X feeled way more vivid and less stiff. Even the metallic ringing on some - not all! - bass notes is present in both instruments...

Compared to Pianoteq 3.6.5, I still prefer the RP-X because it feels more like wood and metal. So far, the best VSTi that comes closest to my image of a piano is Truepianos. Its "diamond" piano sounds much like Steinway/RP-X, but it its string resonance modeling is pretty limited/inferior.

On Pianoteq, the region around middle C sounds too much like harp / nylon strings to my ears, especially when playing jazz voicings.

But I kept an eye on Pianoteq since it appeared and will surely buy it sooner or later.... I'm... still waiting for it to create a smile on my face like the ProMega did, when I first played it...

Cheers, Andi

Right, and when you say nylon, that means "not metal".  This is what I have been saying all along, yet most folks keep saying they want LESS metal.

Greg.

Increasing hammer hardness helps, but it's still not metallic enough IMHO.
Even when a real piano is played softly, there is often a velvetty metallic sheen to the sound and Pianoteq does not have this yet (again, IMHO).

Greg.

Thanks. I haven't listened to it yet because my Android phone doesn't like the link unfortunately.    I'm eager to hear it so I'll try again later from a real computer.  There have been plenty of bright presets before though, and I'm a bit skeptical that you've managed to suddenly "crack" this issue.  The quality I'm referring to is more than just being bright - its a delicate "satin" finish to the sound. But I'll certainly listen with open ears.

Greg.

I think sigasa's fine improvisation is probably the best that can be attained with the current model. We have discussed this often and what's missing is the very subtle interaction between hammer and strings in the initial attack which is not yet modeled in my opinion. Of course samples provide it because it is recorded for each string.

This could be very cpu intensive for the first few milliseconds of sound and also no convincing physical model has been published yet as far as I know (I did some technical paper reading on this a while back)

Probably the best compromise is indeed to rely on enhanced undamped strings and soundboard effect which is what Pianoverb seems to offer (I didn't try it though).

By the way, sigasa's file is tuned higher (around 454Hz if the piece starts in B flat minor) which helps to add some sheen. Maybe this was done to interact better with Pianoverb.

I also noticed that the new Pleyel has a much more resonant soundboard than K1 (apart from the few more undamped strings) and it may sound like some of Pianoverb's effect.

Hi Greg,
I feel your frustration at trying to capture that elusive velvety steel sound.  I enjoy listening to jazz recordings where the mic is inside the piano right next to the hammers.  You can definitely hear the metallic quality of the strings and it gives you an intimate sound like you  are lying down inside the piano.  :-)
I recently upgraded to the pro version last week and I have been fooling around with the steel sound.  I have uploaded my "Steel Velvet fxp" and an mp3 to demonstrate it.
Here's the link to what Greg is looking for:
http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/the-lo...d315013454

Here's a link to my files:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.php

Listen to Greg's example, then my mp3.  I can't quite get the same reverb as his original and no matter how I position the mics, I still would like it closer and closer (on top of the hammers).  But the point is, I did some things with the Q Factor and Cutoff in the pro version on individual sections of the piano to give it a metallic shine.

Comments are welcome.
Enjoy,
Erich

I will try your fxp but I can hear from the mp3 that you did a good job to bring the right direction but your  limitation is in the software. I've got the pro version for some time now but I couldn't find the key. I really like PTQ for it's playability and it's great features and I'm still waiting for that day, all this excellent work from the PTQ-team will for sure lead into an adequate result, which is the goal for everybody who's going this way of passion.

I, for myself have experimented with bringing the missing parts from other sound sources into the scene. First I've tried it with the Steinway D sound from Ivory, which I still like as a static picture of a Steinway type of sound. Well I've tried with the Pro version to tune PTQ on the Ivory Steinway D but I failed completely on their differences. I gave it up. After a while, inspired by a user treat here on the forum , I#ve tried the same with  "truepianos" and it worked much better. So I tweaked a PTQ preset as long that fits to a "truepiano" sound (which I didn't like on it's own) and then I had  a nice sounding preset with a good attack, woody and singing sustain and at full velocities aggressive metallic overtones (which came mostly from PTQ with much squareness) 
One problem when layering different sound modules is the latency in the system of a DAW, which can not be automatically handled by the software while playing life. So I've used an millisecond delay to handle this.

So as an conclusion I would think, as PTQ developer, into the direction of combining a little bit of a sampled attack with the good results of the modeling idea, something like the old D-50 concept. But maybe that is against the ideals of modartt!?
To get a quick and convincing result for a while, it would not be a shame at all.

But who knows what they have in the background waiting for us?   At the end of the day there are always one or two instances of PTQ in my mixes for more than three years now!

heinke

ideals. shame. You nailed it!

Creating a hybrid approach (3.5th piano generation) could be interpreted in different ways. It could be seen as a defeat: "Well, they claimed to create a true modeled piano and finally had to admit, that it is impossible." But it could also be interpreted as humility: "Well, they try to create a true modeled piano but this showed up to be more complicated than expected, so they added sampling techniques as an interim solution, until true modeling catches up."

For the regular end user there is only one thing that counts: the output. He doesn't really care about what's under the hood of the black box... (Well, there are irregular end users as well (including myself), that are emotionally very much involved in the evolution of digital pianos, and some of them really would interpret a hybrid approach as a step back and feel very disappointed, but I assume they are a minority...)

Yes, a very good description! You are definitely hearing what I am referring to.

Your recording sounds very good to me - thanks!  It still doesn't sound fantastic (like that Bacharach recording), but it's a definite big step in the right direction.  I haven't had the opportunity to try the FXP yet. This is very encouraging.

Greg.

Hm... unfortunately I cannot try the Pleyel. I only have a trial version of Pianoteq

But regarding CUDA - what about audio latency? We currently have:

Midi Keyboard -> Midi Interface -> CPU, evaluate piano model -> Audio Interface -> Loudspeaker/Headphone

CUDA would turn this into

Midi Keyboard -> Midi Interface -> CPU -> Graphics Card, evaluate piano model -> CPU -> Audio Interface -> Loudspeaker/Headphone

Yeah, maybe and till they will have shoot the goal I will keep on recording and will use any kind of gear that gets me closer to what I wanna hear.
Mix it up and stack it and nail it to the floor...

I'm confused. Changing the sampling rate on your sound card changes the pitch of a recording if the recording was sampled at a different rate?

Thank you Heinke and Greg for your kind comments.  Greg, I agree with you that my preset is not fantastic, but maybe someone could tweak or add something that I can't achieve.  Listening back and forth between your target recording and my pro version of PT is a fun challenge for me, but I have to admit that it takes up time. :-)  If I had more time to listen back and forth at my computer, I'm sure I could alter some settings to get it a little closer.
     As was posted earlier, I think that you will eventually run up against a wall with whatever model you choose, in terms of trying to duplicate a recording.  But I will say this: It is amazing what controls you have in Pianoteq, (especially the pro version) in creating an instrument that suits your needs.  I have only had the pro version for a week, and have only scratched the surface, but I feel that I can eventually custom make a decent sounding classical, jazz, or pop piano with clicks of the mouse.  That is really fun!
I will try to post some favorite target recordings of my own to the forum and maybe some users can have a crack at them.
     Events such as Modartt's release of the Pleyel model keep reassuring my faith in acoustic modeling as the way forward.  As EvilDragon stated, given enough CPU power and software algorithms, anything can be achieved, whether modeling the weather, the human genome, or a Steinway D!  ;-)

I avoid playing mixing with headphones whenever I can. When I played the velvet preset over my speaker system, I couldn't recognize any harshness. (Just the PTQ type of sound you can filter with a well designed highcut or maybe haircut )
Harshness is what headphones are doing to our ears! But sorry Greg, I don't mean that you are not hearing what you are hearing! I still think that any irritation from the high end comes from a weakness in the lower mid range, what we all described as "woodless" or attack-problem or whatever it is. When I compare Steinway D  it has much more metallic overtones but it's compensated through the round and warm tone of it's fundamentals.
On my system with the velocity-output of my keyboard the Erich's "velvet" preset is one of the best sounding presets I've ever downloaded from the page. But that shows again how difficult it is for modartt to satisfy every customer. What ever is missing in PTQ it is still missing a little bit (by all forthcome of the software and its points on the + side).

And Greg. Let your ears breath the air of freedom....

Btw, I hear the harshness in Marco Borsatti's recording on the References page ( http://www.pianoteq.com/references ). That sound may well have been exactly what Marco wanted, but I don't like it. It not only sounds unnatural, it sounds unpleasant.

Greg.

Thanks Guillaume.

Btw, when I played Erich's FXP, it reminded me of a pop song that I had heard. I've finally worked out what song it is: "It's So Easy To Fall In Love", by Linda Ronstadt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJJkDbwMUXs  It sounds slightly like that harpsichord/clav sound that is prominent in this song.  At time 1:25 this sound can be heard solo.

Yes, I am exaggerating profusely of course.

So unfortunately I am not hearing much of the silvery lustre in Erich's FXP at all. The delicate fine detail isn't there.

Greg.

which sampled piano Greg

Hi Greg!

Sorry, I can not follow you any more! This harpsi-sound on that recording is so far away from what I hear when I play Erichs preset, that I wonder if we talk from the same planet.
I can't belief that we are both so far away from each other (I mean hearing-ability), so I guess there must be something wrong, which often in past discussions about user FXP's seemed to appear.
A incompatibility in system chains-maybe?
Do you use 32 bit or 64 bit or 44,1- 88,2 Khz?
Or maybe your focus on the weaknesses of PTQ is momentary so big that it appears like a monster to you?    That also happens sometimes to me....
But seriously- We recognized in the past that only velocity differences from one master keyboard to another could result in very different judgments on the same user presets.
It's not very easy to talk about the same terms sitting on very different places around the world, not having a calibrated hearing and reproducing chain. But the audio- result should be (the old goal!)  on various speaker systems on a professional level. You where absolutely right, to say that a recording of high quality (like the Bacharach CD ) sounds on mostly every sound-system as it should. Means, it keeps the essential information. So I think only audio recordings are of that kind of meaningfulness which let us talk seriously about the same things.
So can you record a short track with the velvet preset,  that we can hear the harpsi-sounding-effect you described?

all the best from me here

Heinke