Modartt user forum » Pianoteq user forum » i am sure Pianoteq is able to "mimic" any of the best sampled pianos
Hi,
just a idéa:
I appreciate if i had the opportunity to prove to "anyone" that Pianoteq Pro is able to "mimic" any of the best sampled pianos.
J'apprécierais d'avoir l'occasion de prouver à "quiconque" que Pianoteq Pro est capable de "mimer" n'importe lequel des meilleurs pianos échantillonnés.
I appreciate if i had the opportunity to prove to "anyone" that Pianoteq Pro is able to "mimic" any of the best sampled pianos.
That idea is something I like to call the "Holy Grail" of virtual piano modeling.
Some think it's getting close (me included) but few people think it's there yet. Right now, the best sample library is going to sound better note-for-note. I think the more interesting acoustic phenomena are built-in to a modeled piano, but a sampled piano always has to perform lots of "tricks" to produce the same phenomena.
Modeling just seems to me to be the more elegant solution, once the computing power is able to perform live.
I would be very interested to see Modartt release a "Pianoteq Render" program that does not produce sound live, but renders a MIDI file at extremely high precision, quality, etc. Pianoteq sounds great for live performance, but would it be possible to render recordings at an entirely different level of quality by sacrificing the "realtime" features?
That idea is something I like to call the "Holy Grail" of virtual piano modeling.
Some think it's getting close (me included) but few people think it's there yet. Right now, the best sample library is going to sound better note-for-note ...
yes, you are certainly right
I would be curious if someone with Pianoteq but also Galaxy Pro Vintage D or Ivory Italian Grand II (which seem to be both the vsti standard), seriously tried to "clone" one or other of these sampled pianos? I'm sure the result would be bluffing ...
je serais curieux de savoir si une personne possédant Pianoteq Pro ainsi que Galaxy Vintage D ou Ivory II Italian Grand,(qui semblent être les vsti standards) à sérieusement essayé de "cloner" l'un ou l'autre de ces pianos samplés ? il est certain que le résultat serait bluffant ...
I just found a site that tests http://www.try-sound.com online lots of virtual instruments ... Incredible!
Leaving aside the (very) low latency, it is possible to live on the strum vsti that we would like to acquire ... Whouaouhh!
Okay, I admit that (because of my modest pension) I would have liked to be "sponsored" by Pianoteq ...
but I will, soon acquire vintage Galaxy D and "cloning" or get as close as possible to its sound with my Pianoteq Pro, and I'm sure it's doable ...
Je viens de découvrir un site http://www.try-sound.com qui permet de tester en ligne un bon nombre d'instruments virtuels ... Incroyable!!!
Abstraction faite de la (très très) faible latence, il est possible de pianoter en direct sur le vsti que l'on aimerait acquérir... Whouaouhh!!!
Bon, j'avoue que (en raison de ma modeste pension) j'aurais apprécié être "parrainé" par Pianoteq ...
mais je vais, prochainement, acquérir Galaxy vintage D et "cloner" ou me rapprocher le plus possible de sa sonorité avec mon Pianoteq Pro, et je suis sur que c'est faisable...
...
Humm! I think i'm gone wait for Pianoteq 4 before spending my money...
good idea ! :-)
A very good idea to wait.
Re: i am sure Pianoteq is able to "mimic" any of the best sampled pianosYes and there are a lot of pianists who love pianoteq for recording. They would fall in love a enhanced version like rendering-pro.
Moddart said the hard work is about to choose what elements will be choose to algoritym modelle the piano sound. Mayvbe a Render Pro would just put more elements.
But one side effect is that this would create a thing like THE BEST DIGITAL PIANO ON EARTH,,,, this would hit, beat every other piano, including the actual pianoteq.
What if people get too used with perfection in non-real time and compare too much with the real time imperfect "cousin" ????
Moddart could offer is offer Platinun Rendering Service. Like get a 8 cores PC and render music albuns (piano track) for musician who recorded in pianoteq. Musisians would send the midi and the FXP, and get the finished piano track recording.
Another alternative: A CPU-Hungry real timev ersion for people with hi-end processor, like i7 (6 cores version) or more.
----
"I would be very interested to see Modartt release a "Pianoteq Render" program that does not produce sound live, but renders a MIDI file at extremely high precision, quality, etc. Pianoteq sounds great for live performance, but would it be possible to render recordings at an entirely different level of quality by sacrificing the "realtime" features?"
Hi, just my recollection of past conversations, and my own impressions as well:
I don't believe it is much a matter of "hitting the gas pedal harder". I doubt if Modartt has a "holy grail" in their drawers, waiting for a strong enough machine to render it.
It would be naive to imagine there is a "render accuracy knob" that Modartt is reluctant to push all the way up just because contemporary processors are unable to render it live.
Perhaps there are some compromises they knowingly making in the model, in favor of real time performance - this is plausible, but it certainly doesn't mean that these are compromises off a "perfect" model. They may be compromises off a better model.
But hitting a "holy grail" model - that would simulate a piano to the last squeak - I'm not sure how feasible it is in the first place. A physics student told me once that his professor said that all physical models are wrong. But some of them are useful.
Pianoteq 3 is great, and I'm sure Pianoteq 4 will be excitingly better. On the same lines of that physics quote, I believe the path would be getting closer and closer, from version to version, until a practically "perfect enough" piano would be reached. But I'd refrain from thinking in terms of the Holy Grail at the end of Castle Aaaaa...
Just my 2 cents.
Eran
Mimicking a sampled piano sound exactly is probably not something that will be achievable. This is because the samples themselves go through a lot of sound engineering. There are probably different eq curves and dynamic range compression used depending on the position of the sampled note in the piano (low, mid, high) and the velocity level. Also, the frequency response curve of various microphones and their placement can effect the sound as well. At the moment pianoteq only models pure flat omnidirectional mics and the re-positioning of these mics doesn't lead to a very deterministic change in the sound (i.e., a very small change in placement changes the sound quite dramatically). Then there are reverb setups. It wouldn't surprise me if the samples are ran through a high quality impulse based reverb before they are compiled into the library. Then on top of all that is the eq and reverb that the sample library front end uses to massage the sound.
IMHO a sampled piano basically eliminates a lot of the sound engineering work required to get a piano properly positioned and sounding good in a mix. An alternative goal might be working to get pianoteq sounding like high quality studio recordings before the loudness war started.
Well, I hate to throw a damper on all this enthusiasm but I personally think that the next PIANOTEQ sound will be little different from what we have now. I think they have brought it just about as far as they can. If they had something very good already, they would have given us another "taste". We hear nothing. That is because they have nothing. The next version might be marginally better but I think it will consist mostly of add-ons ... different historical pianos, etc ... but not much in the way of just plain old grand piano sound.
I, of course, will welcome being wrong but I don't think so.
I would say that it's resonable to expet something like Pianoteq get better, int he entire range, than V-piano's tone note per note.
That would be already a very welcome advance.
I'm in agreement with the crowd that believes a blend of samples and modelling would produce the most realistic and importantly- EVEN sounding and playing- results.
Well, I hate to throw a damper on all this enthusiasm but I personally think that the next PIANOTEQ sound will be little different from what we have now. I think they have brought it just about as far as they can. If they had something very good already, they would have given us another "taste". We hear nothing. That is because they have nothing. The next version might be marginally better but I think it will consist mostly of add-ons ... different historical pianos, etc ... but not much in the way of just plain old grand piano sound.
I, of course, will welcome being wrong but I don't think so.
I really think you made a mistake, Pianoteq 4 is not going to be just an uptade, and we shall be very surprised by the quality of the new piano sound...
exept for the attack, Pianoteq is really a wondeful software with infinite possibility.
i do not say he is the best, but he is going to became the best...
(forgive my poor english)
imyself,
Many of us hope that you're right. I'm a bit optimistic because of a few things:
1) Pianoteq 3 was a HUGE improvement over Pteq 2;
2) It's been a long wait between versions;
3) There are now other players in the field, big companies like Yamaha and Roland, and Modartt is surely making an effort to stay ahead of the pack;
40 This will be the first upgrade for which there will be an upgrade fee
All of these things seem to point towards significant changes being made to improve realism. Playability is already there.
4) This will be the first upgrade for which there will be an upgrade fee
This will very likely depend on which version you've purchased. If you purchased v3 originally, it's likely that there won't be an upgrade fee. Just my perspective, I might be proven wrong. But perhaps on the other hand I might be right.
Well, it's probably one or the other
I'm in agreement with the crowd that believes a blend of samples and modelling would produce the most realistic and importantly- EVEN sounding and playing- results.
Not sure about what you refer.
There are already hybrid version, like truepainaos, that uses small sample data bank and agorithms to create harmonic and new velocities,and the result it's nothing great.
Ivory use modeled (if we think in symphatethic resonance algoritym as moddeled) to try add nice harmonics and a very large data bank of sounds, but the result it's not perfect, and bny listening we still feel the touch of sampler it have.
If you refer about mix the sound of a sampled note with the sound of moddeled note, you would get something like a chorus, since, for exemple, one people singing it's diferent than 2 people singing, even the the two people have very similar voices and sing extremelly in fine sincronization.
Hey Dragon, you are a beta tester, and are smilling a lot last months.
I bet you are pretty happy with the results of pianoteq, even in beta stages of V4.
This is a good signal, as you already can "taste the cheese".
First of all, isn't speculating a whole lot of fun??? :-)
Second, regarding sampling and modeling. Well I think there is a whole spectrum of possible combinations between the two.
For example, instead of sampling the final sound, you can sample an "intermediate" reaction, and feed that into the model. e.g. if you have a modelled trumpet, you can sample the air flow through the mouth piece. Or in a piano, the intricate bounce of the hammer against the string.
Another example, is that you can sample instead of a whole sound, just some partials of it. Think of a convolution reverb, it's actually a non trivial blend of sampling and modelling...
Finally - there is much love for Modartt in this forum, well deserved, and they set the expectations pretty high. I say - let's give them the credit for their passion, creativity and ingenuity, that they continue to produce superb products. I think there is reason to be optimistic about the technology - it has took sampling 30 years to get to it's current state, and maybe start platueing. I don't believe physical acoustic modelling has run out of juice yet, or anytime soon.
The other side of the coin is: let's be realistic - this technology has yet to run it's course. There is still enough room for improvement - and hopefully we'll continue to see gradual improvements over the coming years. Modartt is doing a fine job leading the way, and I wish them the good fortune to continue to do so.
-- E
I'm curious about pianoteq CPU demand.
I ask to anyone who can to trace a parallel. The evolution of CPU performance along the last 6 years, and the CPU demand of each pianoteq version along this 6 yeras.
I have a feeling that pianoteq changed too little in terms of CPU demand, comparing to the processors evolution.
Core2Duo 2 GHz over here. Pianoteq going around 35-55%...
etalmor:
I don't believe it is much a matter of "hitting the gas pedal harder". I doubt if Modartt has a "holy grail" in their drawers, waiting for a strong enough machine to render it.
It would be naive to imagine there is a "render accuracy knob" that Modartt is reluctant to push all the way up just because contemporary processors are unable to render it live.
I don't think it's naïve to think this is the case. In fact, I think it's naïve to think that Modartt simply hacked their code together without an underlying set of equations that tell how strings and other materials vibrate and interact. They certainly do not have their "best model currently possible" in Pianoteq now, because they had to greatly simplify and approximate their ideal equations in order to make them computable in a reasonably "live" fashion. (I won't say "realtime" because that really means something different.)
If this is the case, I think they should release a more accurate model that doesn't try to be live. It wouldn't necessarily require 8 cores or tons of memory, but it would concentrate more on quality than on performance. I'd pay extra for such a product.
I am not even remotely a computational acoustics expert, but my computer science background tells me that you simply must have your ideal equations figured out in order to accomplish something like what Modartt has done. Maybe they've moved on from their mathematics and work entirely with their current approximated models. Maybe it would be a lot more work to go back to the math and make a new version. Or, maybe they already have a prototype they could turn into an extreme-quality non-live rendering program. Either way, it's just an idea that I think would be good.
Regarding a high quality rendering engine, I like the idea too.
Probably many of us have tried to do the basic midi tracks with Pteq, and then render using a sampling library. So far I've never been satisfied with my results, because of the major differences between the two approaches.
If both segments were done using two versions of Pteq- 'live' and 'rendering' versions, this might work very nicely.
Only 35-55% ???
I think pianoteq it's set to old computers for too long. Every notbook selled today have at least dual core, and most have i3.
etalmor:...
I don't think it's naïve to think this is the case. In fact, I think it's naïve to think that Modartt simply hacked their code together without an underlying set of equations that tell how strings and other materials vibrate and interact. They certainly do not have their "best model currently possible" in Pianoteq now, because they had to greatly simplify and approximate their ideal equations in order to make them computable in a reasonably "live" fashion. (I won't say "realtime" because that really means something different.)
I agree Modartt definitely did not hack their code, and they do have an underlying set of equations. However, consider this: what is the equation of a string? there is no one answer to that.
- On one end, it could be something rather simplistic that describes a "perfect" string that has no harmonic distortion. We know Modartt's model is better than that - as it takes into account the length of the string which affects harmonic distortion.
- On the other end, it could be something impossibly complex that describes each and every molecule in the string. This takes into account the edges of the string around the tuning pins, the flexibility and temperature changes in every tiny bit of the string, etc, etc...
And theoretically, even that is not a perfect model - it doesn't describe chemical reactions such as corrosion of the metal, and i'm not even talking about sub-atomic phenomena. Perhaps practically these details are not interesting from an acoustic experience perspective. After all, one just needs to model what can be perceived.
My point is that there is no such thing as a perfect model - every model makes compromises. The question is (and I think I'm quoting Guillaume from an old post) *what* to model, which is the same question as what not to model. Certainly you can't model *everything* (you'd need a theoretical quantum computer for that!)
Having said this - I deeply respect and admire the work being done by Modartt.
Regards,
Eran.
If the equation wasn't resumed, would take many days to a computer process the data for a single second of music !!!!
Think about it.
The secrete is to use the esential, sellect what is more important in a model. That's very difficult.
Etalmor and Beto-Music, you are right, you have to model what contributes the most to the sound you're trying to achieve.
My point is this. Yes, you can take it to the absurd and say that every molecule should be considered in an absolutely perfect piano model, but for the most part, the components of a piano are sufficiently consistent to fit into a set of equations.
The strings are probably quite uniform in their construction from end to end. Of course they differ by thickness and tension, but those can be accounted for. The soundboard wood is, on decent pianos, probably quite consistent. The hammer felt ought to be consistent, if a skilled tuner has voiced it properly.
If you assume these consistencies, then the behavior of the strings and other parts can be perfectly modeled. I wasn't claiming that a perfect molecular model is feasible, just that once you have made assumptions about your model, a perfect mathematical model is possible. This model is what has to then be quantified and simplified into something that can be computed live.
I'm not asking for the absolute perfect piano model, simply one that has not been reduced so far as to be a live model.
Hi JerryKnight,
I guess we're all on the same page.
Though just one thing on my mind now - go go ptq 4!!
Kind regards,
Eran
"i have a dream" (MLK)
so do i!
the "D" Day is not far away, and we are going to be very well surprised...
Then problem for me is the atom.
The atom got too bif today... I men... we reach a point that a processor have a limit of zise dua atom size, from this point we just add cores and don't get a new faster processor (core) itself.
Light speed also became too slow today... you can't get a transcontinental duet em real time without latency problems due light speed.
Moddart will need to change the laws of physic. :-)
"i have a dream" (MLK)
so do i!
the "D" Day is not far away, and we are going to be very well surprised...