Topic by vjau

  • Avatar
  • vjau
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 08-11-2010
  • Posts: 46

Topic: What i don't like about Pianoteq

Hi everyone.
First a little background.
I have been following Pianoteq since the first version. When i read about it on the northern sounds forums (a forum about sound libraries), i was very enthusiastic. A project by a high level mathematician, former piano tuner (and French, cocorico !), this was VERY interesting. And then i downloaded the demo and tried it, and it was a huge deception, i hated it (or at least the result) quite immediately ! How can people pretend to play the piano with this thing ? Yeah, perhaps it's a scientific breaktrough, but if it brings you perhaps 30 years back, what's the point ?
However, since the project was so fascinating, i kept following it. With every update, i was reading the enthusiastic reception of its followers, "this is a million lightyear better than previous version" "night & day"... Each time i downloaded the new demo and each time it was a cold shower : yeah, it's nice, but nowhere near a real piano. I was even wondering how someone was willing to pay 250 euros for this.
The problem for me was this synthetic artefact which i was able to recognize during the first seconds of any demo on the website.
And then came version 3, which was still not good enough for my taste. I downloaded (again) the demo version, found (again) that it was perhaps a bit better than previous version, but still not there (by far !). But this time, i played on the demo version a bit more, catched myself being annoyed by the missing notes limitation, and when i came back to my favorite sampling bank (Sampletekk 7Cg), i began to understand the pros of Pianoteq: although the sound was subpar, i enjoyed playing it more than the 7Cg ! (i think it's related to the superlative sustain on Pianoteq). The availability of the "play" version was enough to beat my resistance, i bought it at least and have been enjoyed it since.

Since then, i have been waiting for version 4 with much expectations. With the longer than usual development time my expectations went a bit higher. The result is not bad, i think that the audio demo on the website are not ridiculous anymore (at least for the classical presets), but the problem is that this synthetic artefact is still there. I recognize that it's less and less present with each version, better hidden in classical (muddy) presets, better hidden in the pianissimos, much more obvious in the fortissimos...
I really think that Pianoteq is a great project, i have bought version 4 and i will continue to support it, but i'm finding it a little strange than this artefact has still not gotten ridden off with all this time. Is it a limitation of actual science/research/computing power ? Do the developer(s) hear it ?

I have attached a small clip of the nice demo recently posted in the forum of Chopin's 4th prelude. This is a passage with a fortissimo where i find the artefact VERY annoying. For me, it's the perfect representation of what i would call (please excuse me) the infamous Pianoteq sound signature. The best description i could find for it would be a "ringing" sound. With this signature away, Pianoteq would be quite perfect for me.

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...inging.mp3

Hope that helps.

Excusez mon mauvais anglais mais je ne voulais pas écrire un long message en Français par respect pour les autres membres du forum.

Reply by vjau

  • Avatar
  • vjau
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 08-11-2010
  • Posts: 46

Re: What i don't like about Pianoteq

I must add than in the sound clip, the loud G is the most distorted note by the "ringing" of the sequence.

Reply by dondascher

  • Avatar
  • dondascher
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-11-2011
  • Posts: 95

Re: What i don't like about Pianoteq

I think, you have captured the problem quite well.   You may wish to present this as a MID file.   Then, those who wish to could try developing a preset that addresses that issue .... just to see if it can be improved upon with "tinkering".

Reply by Beto-Music

  • Avatar
  • Beto-Music
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 02-05-2007
  • Posts: 2,783

Re: What i don't like about Pianoteq

I feel that everyone who tried or listened too much of pianoteq early versions, created a automatic "thin hunter" neural ability. Their brains became trained to easily detect anything that remind a bit what they didn't like.

People who got annoyed by thin and metallic sounds of V1, V2, and even some from version 3, will listen to version 4 already very concentrated to chase, to hunt, any small remains of that particular effect, even than a little bit that would pass unnoticed by the majority of listeners.

If we always listen trying to chase any small defect, it would be like watch a film with CGI effects, ready to notice any small imperfection or artificial look of the CGI forms, and we would not enjoy the film.

But at the same time, we can report such small characteristics remains to Modartt, once they are working to someday get perfection. So I think it's important to report it in a gentle way.

About this clip, I notice what you mean, but it's only in the note decay, and it will not bother unless you keep it on mind, waiting for it.

If you have pianoteq 4 Pro, you can try to alter characteristic only for this specific note, and perhaps get a result you like.
If you don't have, maybe someone in this forum can try to alter this note for you, and send you a FXP.

I would alter the hammer hardness Forte reducing a bit, alter the impedance , Q-factor and cutoff, all for only this particular note.  Maybe increase a bit the hammer noise, and try to alter unison too, again, only for this G note.


Sometimes I feel we could have a hammer noise adjust for piano, mezzo and forte. 
Also, I think would be easier to have a more automatic key by key interface, for cases we only wish to alter one or a couple of keys.  For example in this case, of this particular key that annoys you, we would select a key or two, and the key get illuminated, and any further adjusts we make to the slider will be address just for this key.
This would avoid the need to go along note edition graphic one by one, sellecting the same note again and again for each characteristic.

But I don't want Modartt team jumping from Eiffel tower due one more crazy request.   

Last edited by Beto-Music (29-04-2012 18:20)

Reply by Rohade

  • Avatar
  • Rohade
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 15-03-2012
  • Posts: 114

Re: What i don't like about Pianoteq

I agree with Beto, maybe some people is trained to detect some sounds, when you hear a sound for a first time is easier to pay attention to it and it becomes more relevant, even when before it was impossible to hear, it happens with other senses as well.

I also think some may not like the sound of a Steinway.

Because as many know, I also think that Pianoteq 4 is the best piano out there, by a mile. I'm talking about the D4.

However, some have been complaining of a metallic ringing sound on bass notes, if its what I think, let me tell you that is not an artefact, is just harmonics and is present on Vintage D, Ivory 2, when you hit hard a bass note you can hear a bell-like sound.

However if you still dont like it, even if it has to be there, Pianoteq is the only one I find that gives you the option to eliminate it just with the standart version by having a high q factor, cutoff also dismish it but is not as effective. Short string lenght also dismish it. I like it the way it is but it may help to the people who don't like the bell ringin on bass notes.

And want more?, remember to check the fxp made by Sebion of cleaned bass, he said it was present on an acoustic steinway but he didnt like them anyway, I think he used the pro version for it so it may be better than just changing the q factor.

Reply by Philippe Guillaume

  • Avatar
  • Philippe Guillaume
  • Admin
  • Offline
  • Registered: 25-04-2007
  • Posts: 5,405

Re: What i don't like about Pianoteq

Thank you vjau for your detailed testimony about your experience. I uploaded in the fxp corner an fxp called "D4 for Chopin prelude 4 (v2).fxp" that has much less "ringing" than "D4 for Chopin prelude 4 (v1).fxp". This was made by reducing the impedance, the Cutoff and augmenting the Q factor (and also reducing a bit the hammer hardness). If you compare the two versions, you will notice how important changes to the sound can be made by modifying the soundboard properties. I hope you enjoy it.

Philippe Guillaume's Website

Reply by Rohade

  • Avatar
  • Rohade
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 15-03-2012
  • Posts: 114

Re: What i don't like about Pianoteq

Amazing, did you use the pro version to apply those factors to a single note or is applied in the whole instrument?

I was just testing with those parameters but I have the standard version and found that it modified the sound as a whole so I was thinking that pro version would be perfect to modify those little tweaks without altering the whole sound.

Reply by imyself

  • Avatar
  • imyself
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: never far from my VPC1...
  • Registered: 09-04-2011
  • Posts: 214

Re: What i don't like about Pianoteq

I do not think there is so much creator as this for their customers as you are ...
thank you, Mr Philippe, for that.

Reply by Philippe Guillaume

  • Avatar
  • Philippe Guillaume
  • Admin
  • Offline
  • Registered: 25-04-2007
  • Posts: 5,405

Re: What i don't like about Pianoteq

Rohade wrote:

Amazing, did you use the pro version to apply those factors to a single note or is applied in the whole instrument?

I was just testing with those parameters but I have the standard version and found that it modified the sound as a whole so I was thinking that pro version would be perfect to modify those little tweaks without altering the whole sound.

Well, here I was a bit lazy so the changes are global (in other words they can be done via the standard version, though it can surely be improved by editing note per note with the pro.)

Philippe Guillaume's Website