Toning

I like the sound that you are getting in both of these recordings. I don't hear the midrange as being too loud.

I'm looking forward to hearing how the second fxp sounds once you've completed more octaves.

More generally, can you describe the sound that you are trying to achieve with mezzo strikes?

FWIW, just in case this is related, I seem to find that I prefer the MF slider quite a long way to the left, so that I have a nice linear timbre vs velocity response, that also allows me to easily play in the softer timbres. Sometimes  the P and MF sliders are almost at the same position.

Greg.

Looking forward to hearing what you develop.

One thing that occurs to me is that the fxp, as always, will sound different using different keyboards with varying velocity responses. What keyboard do you use? What velocity response (soft\hard, etc) are you using for your default setting while creating this fxp?

I'm not  trying to be critical of your work. Only trying to determine if I will be able to duplicate the sound on my CP300.

LAST POST INCORRECT!!!

More analyisi required!!! Will report shortly!!!

Jake, not at all offended! No worries!

My goodness, after what must be at least 2 weeks of work, trial and error, scruggle, late nights etc. etc., I just did the whole thing in less than an hour - from scratch!

I'm not sure whether any of my previous post was accurate but I did realize I was heavlily compensating for 'inconsistent velocities'! However, the beauty of PianoTeq PRO is the note edit function(s) and this has meant the equivelent of a note for note velocity curve. I now have a brand new keyboard!!! Albeit with sticky label residue on the keys after much work on it!!! It certainly feels like I've got a new board when playing it now!!!

I'll shut up now for a little while and let the .mp3 I'm about to post do the talking.

Regards,

Chris

More revelations!!!

I am now sure that the issue of velocity inconsistencies in the studiologic/fatar boards is purely mechanical. 99.99% sure!

I was playing some stuff tonight and generally checking the keys performance and when I noticed that there was a key that sometimes would produces louder sounds than the surrounding keys and sometimes not, I jabbed it at ffff. It stopped it's louder sounds. I tried this some other keys and, sure enough, they too started to behave normally. I also remember a post by John Rule in which he says that the more he's played his NUMA Nero, the better his aftertouch velocities have functioned.

I'm convinced that these things need playing in like a real acoustic grand. After all, they have mechanical parts that need to settle just like any machine.Obviously, if the sensors are not properly snug on the circuitboard, this can cause problems, but I seated mine meticulously thoroughly and still had variations. It was late when I was playing so I couldn't jabb all the keys, but I will tomorrow and let you know the results.

The saga continues...

Much more work done now and after coming to to the wrong conclusion that this was an impossible feat, have found myself starting again from scratch. I have done 4 notes!!! I'm not a snail, honest! If I can get this done, I will save myself at least £600 which is the price of the cheapest optical strip.

More news later,

Regards,

Chris

The sound you're getting in the mp3 is just wonderful, sigasa.  I'm not someone to gush, but the midrange in your recording brings out a sense of strings and hammers that I don't think I've heard before in PT.

On the other hand, to make a too rapid transition, this recording makes me want to know more about how you made your choices. What were you listening for as you edited each note?

Did you go entirely by ear?

Thanks for posting these fxp's and demo's. (And for all of the time and work.)

I'm puzzled by the velocity curve. It shoots up to a mf velocity response of 75 at a keyboard velocity of 36 or so. Does the NUMA have a hard action that encourages raising the response in this way?

Do you see why I'm asking? By raising the curve early, don't you just about skip the entire piano velocity layer. Don't misunderstand. I like the sound that you're getting. I'm just unclear on why the velocity curve is advantageous.

Did you try using the Dynamics slider to bring up the amplitude of the lower velocities? Moving it to the left will raise the  amplitude of the soft strikes (possibly forcing you to reduce the overall volume). Of course, you might find that you wanted to then impose your mezzo strike pattern to the soft strikes...

Another evening of work has concluded with more revelation.

There are TWO distinct causes of velocity inconsistancies in the NUMA Nero (as with other Fatar / Studiologic boards.)

Cause 1. has to do with the sensors. This is the mechanical cause.

Cause 2. has to do with the midi brain / keyboard cpu / firmware. This is the programming cause.

As most of you will know, I have sorted the mechanical cause by meticulously cleaning the senors etc..

However the second cause is inbuilt into the onboard electronics and this is what has been causing me problems. I have discovered that the midi brain /keyboard cpu / firmware actually continually 'listens' to what velocities you are playing at and adjusts accordingly. I did some experimentation and found this to be the case. I'm certain it is inextricably linked to the 'YouPlay' facility as this also behaves in the exact same way.
This second cause is by far the most irritating in that it's not just a simple cleaning procedure. I suppose it is possible that a firmware update may address it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

For this reason, I am unable to finalise my work until I have installed the PNOscan midi strip. This will give me reliably consistent velocities with which to analyse. Presently playing my keyboard is like playing a Nasa foam matress! - continually reshaping itself as it wishes! Unreliable at best, downright annoying at worst!

Apologise to all who were / are hanging in there for a quick fix - there ain't one! At least I've discovered the causes of the problem(s). Now I will work on the solution I've chosen. It seems like I didn't avoid the financial outlay after all!

watch this space...

Regards,

Chris

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/4bd15a664...ad505bf2cc

the above is a link to an .fxp and .mp3 in FXP Corner demonstrating how it IS possible to make two individual note's vastly differing velocity curves play as if identicle using hammer hardness parameters (in this case, mezzo and forte) and volume.  The .fxp contains the adjustment information in it's relevent hammer hardness and volume note edit windows. The two notes (B and F) were the two most contrasting in terms of velocity curves so I knew that if I could sync up these so that they played identicly, it would be possible to match all the lesser contrasting notes. There IS room for improvement, but as a demonstraion of the fact that it IS achieveable, it suffices for now. I will hone it later.

It took me a whole day to accomplish this, just TWO notes! But now it's going to be a whole lot easier 1, knowing I can do it, and 2, knowing exactly which parameters need to be adjusted to get the job done. It will still be intensive, but I now know preciselt what I'm doing.

As to the 'pattern', I believe there IS an overall pattern, but am not convinced that just dicovering it and applying the same parameter adjustments reletive to this pattern, will result in a perfectly even range. I could be wrong, but I still think there might need to be individual incremental adjustments made, pattern or no pattern. I'm now not too interested in the pattern anyway, it just gives me a better orientation to know where the variations are.

I have also now determined my 'control note' i.e. the one whose velocity curve I wish to mimic throughout the range. I will work from there. I have matched the note adjacent to it already and check octaves from these shortly. I think the best way is first of all to get a global skeleton from which I can hang the rest of the work which will also serve as a check for global evenness.

When this project is finally complete, I would desire that the final result be tested on other Fatar boards to establish whether or not it may be used as a corrective template for all Studiologic keys.

Sincere regards,

Chris (back to work!)