The need to modify hammer hardness for different reverb settings

Yes Wolfgang. What I have found is that matching the feel in a hammer action keyboard (in my case, a NUMA Nero) involves adjusting latency so that when the hammer hits the "string" in the keyboard (when the hammer knocks), the sound is heard at the right time. Different keyboards have different timings in their hammer actions due to their varying mechanics and sensor reaction times etc.. When the timing is perfect, it will feel right. Bear in mind though that the dynamics and the velocity curve adjustments, both keyboard's and PianoTeq's, also have a major part in creating the correct feel. In fact these are both crucial, but without getting the latency timed to the hammer hit, no matter how realistic (compared to a real grand) the velocity adjustments and dynamics are, you will still lack the perfect feel i.e. there will be a kind of 'fluffy' feel/sound.

I can honestly say that my 'grand piano' sounds and feels the best it ever has!

Regards,

Chris

Wolfgang,
I set the latency in pianoTeq as low as I can without crackles etc.. Then just messed around with the latency compensation sliders in Asio4 All till I got what I wanted. I suggest you aim for a latency of 2.0 in PianoTeq to begin with. Then, using Asio4All adjust the top 'Latency Compensation' slider labelled (IN) to 0 to begin with. After that's done, play one key. Listen to the sound produced. For the purpose of this excercise, it is useful to use a close mic'd model, not something wooley. Also, turn reverb off. Begin experimenting with the (OUT) slider slightly moving it out from the left. Try 32 for example, then listen and feel the hammer in the keyboard. methodically try each progressive setting and listen and feel how the hammer hitting the string in PianoTeq and the hammer knocking in the keyboard relate. When you get close, you will know. It's more of a feel/listen combined thing. When you have reached the correct place (Latency) the feel and sound will 'marry' and it will just feel right. Also it will be very clear with no 'fluff'. No muddy, sponginess.

Have a try and if you get stuck, I'll do my best to help.

Hope you enjoy experimenting

All the best

Regards,

Chris

Wolfgang (and anyone else who's interested!),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny5SMQBwVmQ

here is the result of my latency timing (actually it doesn't sound as good after the YouTube processing )

regards,

Chris

EDIT: P.S. Watch in 720p HD if you can.

EDIT: P.P.S It's mono!

A) Absolutely Sebastian. I'm sure that could be incorporated in the mathmatical model(s). Stumbling upon this latency compensation thing has certainly has helped me create a perfectly synced  universally timed Knock/String-Hit, but it would be nice if Modartt would introduce a velocity related delay variable (delay amount/gradient preferably adjustable via a slider). You're right about the strike point in the keyboard itself, but really, in a piano I think ideally you want to feel that trigger point at the bottoming out of the key (unless we're adding escapement into the equation?). Having an escapement similating keyboard would be a different ballgame altogether not needing the delay compensation or altered trigger point. The reason for this is that on a real piano, as you say, the jack slips out (escapement) as the hammer is thrown (hammer throw) so mimicing this in a keyboard makes you think, at the escapement point, that you have triggered the hammer and at the key-bottoming-out-point, you have caught it with the check - meaning that the latter point (which is senor trigger point/keybottomingoutpoint on most keyboards) requires abosolute minimum latency. IN CONCLUSION. For those without escapement, PianoTeq is fine as it is (as long as you can minimise latency). For those without, Modartt, may we have some optional velocity related delay (slider + On/Off Switch)? Please?

B) I have decided to save up for the PNOscan Optical Sensor Bar. I will install it in my NUMA Nero. This will repalce the existing sensor strip with it's inherent midi velocity problems (inherent by design).

C) Check around your local Piano restorers to see if they can fix you up with a well maintained, well regulated action. You may find that some pianos involved in fires for example are scrapped because of casework damage, but the actions have survived. There are good preowned actions out there. Worth a try? Unless of course you were thinking new, which I can appreciate. I'll check out the internet and see what I can find out.

Kind regards,

Chris

@sigasa:

I ment LoopBe1: http://nerds.de/en/loopbe1.html
It's a virtual midi driver that can be used to redirect midi data. You could program a simple host application that would pick up midi messages from your actual midi hardware input, then let it be modified the way you want and it would then be output to the virtual midi driver using the virtual midi driver as input for pianoteq.

of course that would involve some knowledge of windows programming.

that means you would have to write your own piece of software that does the delay shifting.

Yeah sigasa that is good to hear because a late trigger point like I experienced on a yamaha stage keyboard where the trigger point was at about <1mm from the key bottoming. When you had it at the bottom you would have to push the key down till it knocks and you would have to slightly compress the felt stop. Ti me it gives a very unnatural play feeling but of course it helps for repetitions, as the key does not have to go up too far to be triggerable again. Some new keyboards have 3 switches to distinguish between repetition point and damper down point resulting in more realism. Do you know if the nero has a three switch logic?
On my keyboard e.g. there where only 2 switches per key and the trigger point was quite early while the keys tend to bump when they come back and hit their upper stop. Very inconvenient to play from my point of view.

Maybe when I have time i'll develop a test programm to check out delaying. If I do so I'll inform you.

Optical sensors are the superior technology when it comes to key measurement, because they can measure the exact position of the key and technologically spoken you can freely adjust what midi messages are sent at which points.
Unfortunately I can't speak for PNOScan since they don't give any detail about technical data of their sensor strip(At least I didn't find some yet)... But I guess their sensor strip will react somehow like a 3 switches per key keyboard. Maybe they even allow the user to position the trigger point and the start to damp point. I don't know I did not even have the chance to check out any midified silent piano yet.

I'm new to this board but have been following this discussion with interest. Like sebion, I have designed and built my own midi sensor strip, in my case installed in an upright acoustic piano, so I have some knowledge of the design issues involved.

I think the particular explanation above is unlikely. A 'tick' is just the interval between two successive scans of the keys. The duration of a tick is almost certainly controlled by a hardware timer in the microcontroller which controls the keyboard scan. There is no reason why different ticks would be of different durations (unless the software which scans the keyboard does not complete within the duration of a tick, causing the next scan to start late).

Is it also worth considering whether the problem could be mechanical in origin ? You mentioned elsewhere that this problem usually occurs during 'sloppy repetitions'. I note that this keyboard does not emulate a true escapement mechanism, but is the 'hammer' free to bounce away from the key at any point in the cycle ? If this could happen, for example during a fast repetition, it would momentarily decrease the effective mass of the key. This would cause the key to accelerate faster than normal when a specific impulse is applied, causing it to reach a higher velocity and therefore produce a higher than normal midi velocity.