Topic: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

I've just started working on ways to add a little more organic cabinet resonance to PianoTEQ, without using it's features. This is my first attempt and I have a few ideas to improve it.

I just want to know if you guys like it at all.

First pass is PianoTEQ 4.0.4, D4 Cinematic. Second pass is the same piano, with my added trick.

Thanks...

http://soundcloud.com/thenightwatch/pia...nance-test

Regards,
Steve Steele
stevesteele.com
Music theorist, composer, Vienna Ensemble Pro templates, YouTube channel (Mains: 2 Mac Pros, Digital Performer, Vienna Ensemble Pro, and an iPad Pro.)

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

nightwatch wrote:

I've just started working on ways to add a little more organic cabinet resonance to PianoTEQ, without using it's features. This is my first attempt and I have a few ideas to improve it.

I just want to know if you guys like it at all.

First pass is PianoTEQ 4.0.4, D4 Cinematic. Second pass is the same piano, with my added trick.

Thanks...

http://soundcloud.com/thenightwatch/pia...nance-test


Hello Mr. Nightwatch,

Looking at the difference in wave forms, the second version (assuming non-Pianoteq editing tools used) probably involves some form of multiband delimiter and/or compression.  The two plugins that immediately come to mind include Flux Alchemy or possibly Waves L3&Multimaximizer or similar versions from other plugin vendors.

Cheers,

Joe

EDIT
P.S.  Just make sure that the audio output levels are normalized to each other;  human hearing perception tends to automatically prefer a slightly louder signal over a similar-but-softer signal.

Last edited by jcfelice88keys (22-06-2012 00:35)

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

jcfelice88keys wrote:
nightwatch wrote:

I've just started working on ways to add a little more organic cabinet resonance to PianoTEQ, without using it's features. This is my first attempt and I have a few ideas to improve it.

I just want to know if you guys like it at all.

First pass is PianoTEQ 4.0.4, D4 Cinematic. Second pass is the same piano, with my added trick.

Thanks...

http://soundcloud.com/thenightwatch/pia...nance-test


Hello Mr. Nightwatch,

Looking at the difference in wave forms, the second version (assuming non-Pianoteq editing tools used) probably involves some form of multiband delimiter and/or compression.  The two plugins that immediately come to mind include Flux Alchemy or possibly Waves L3&Multimaximizer or similar versions from other plugin vendors.

Cheers,

Joe

EDIT
P.S.  Just make sure that the audio output levels are normalized to each other;  human hearing perception tends to automatically prefer a slightly louder signal over a similar-but-softer signal.

Yeah, perhaps I should have made the amplitude for both samples the same, but I added something to the second sample. Also no compression or limiting was used. In fact, no EQ (in the strictest sense) was used either.

Regards,
Steve Steele
stevesteele.com
Music theorist, composer, Vienna Ensemble Pro templates, YouTube channel (Mains: 2 Mac Pros, Digital Performer, Vienna Ensemble Pro, and an iPad Pro.)

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

Hi nightwatch . .   your demonstration caught my attention.  I spend a lot of time investigating these types of things and the fact that your alterations are minimum is good since a piano generates so many but very small incremental components coming from different places.  Nothing that we hear is generated in stereo . . everything is multi-channel.  We listen in stereo and our ears can do the job to sort things out.    Generating multichannel sounds is the way.  Keeping them separated until they get to our ears is a challenge.

Lanny

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

LTECpiano wrote:

Hi nightwatch . .   your demonstration caught my attention.  I spend a lot of time investigating these types of things and the fact that your alterations are minimum is good since a piano generates so many but very small incremental components coming from different places.  Nothing that we hear is generated in stereo . . everything is multi-channel.  We listen in stereo and our ears can do the job to sort things out.    Generating multichannel sounds is the way.  Keeping them separated until they get to our ears is a challenge.

Lanny

Well then, I'll just tell you guys what I did. No big deal, but interesting I think. I mixed PianoTEQ via a send to an aux track loaded with a convolution reverb. I used an IR from the inside of a piano (soundboard and cabinet mainly - not so much strings). Then I edited the IR quite a bit. I shortened the reverb length so that the sound just added some resonance and not any "reverb" so to speak.

The reverb was still form PianoTEQ. I hear a lot more natural "woody" cabinet sound, and of course it's completely adjustable. The D now sounds more like a D IMHO.

If anyone wants the IR and instructions on how I tweaked it, let me know.

I still may go back and mess with the reverb's EQ a bit, and maybe some other parameters.

Regards,
Steve Steele
stevesteele.com
Music theorist, composer, Vienna Ensemble Pro templates, YouTube channel (Mains: 2 Mac Pros, Digital Performer, Vienna Ensemble Pro, and an iPad Pro.)

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

Nightwatch: that sounds great.  I've realized lately how important reverb is to the sound, especially since Pianoteq doesn't have any of the "automatic" reverb/resonance that a sampled piano gets just from the piano cabinet.  I was surprised to see that they didn't include a "piano cabinet" IR with the new convolution reverb.  Can you post your IR so we can all try it out?

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

Coldsalmon wrote:

Nightwatch: that sounds great.  I've realized lately how important reverb is to the sound, especially since Pianoteq doesn't have any of the "automatic" reverb/resonance that a sampled piano gets just from the piano cabinet.  I was surprised to see that they didn't include a "piano cabinet" IR with the new convolution reverb.  Can you post your IR so we can all try it out?

Sure. First you should know that I used Waves IR1 (convolution reverb), which has some unique editing options that some others may or may not have. So the best I can do is give you the initial IR, and show you the preset settings.

It should be too hard to copy, because I didn't mess with the EQ, which I plan on doing, but mainly just the reverb times, size, density and resonance. nothing tricky.

Download the IR file and the image of my reverb setting's here... (ask me about the IR file if you want)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gqrfo40v5qxfy34/We2YH_3dZ4

These are the setting for the verb (again, mainly just adjusting the pre-delay, length, and size. You don't want any reverb trail. You just want it to blend with the attack. Put the reverb on an aux track and turn the send way up. Mix the two channels arrordingly. A very slight bit of multi-band compression might help smooth out PianoTEQ's bell-like lows, and too-open and bright highs. Easy to do.

Let me know how it goes. Try to make it better!

Regards,
Steve Steele
stevesteele.com
Music theorist, composer, Vienna Ensemble Pro templates, YouTube channel (Mains: 2 Mac Pros, Digital Performer, Vienna Ensemble Pro, and an iPad Pro.)

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

Next I plan on altering the attack/sustain part of the sound (the strings), I feel I could warm it up a bit without harming the clarity. I'd like to make it a little less modeled sounding and a little more real-world.

I won't use any compression or any other tools that would decade the signal. I just want to "humanize the sound".

And I'll do is in a way that anyone can easily copy and use for themselves.

Note: The reason I've chosen to do this is because my ears have grown tired of the "perfectness" of modeling. At the same time, my sampled piano libs are always not quite right. Something is always off. Whether it's the programing, or some of the exaggerations that come out in sampling. It would be great to use PianoTEQ and it's low latency and memory requirements, and it's great big tone, but have it a little more human-like.

Let me know..

Regards,
Steve Steele
stevesteele.com
Music theorist, composer, Vienna Ensemble Pro templates, YouTube channel (Mains: 2 Mac Pros, Digital Performer, Vienna Ensemble Pro, and an iPad Pro.)

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

I've been trying your method of adding some cabinet resonance and settled on using your Piano-Resonance-2.wav with the Pianoteq convolution reverb with mix set around 0, and envelope to around -30 db. I've decided that envelope controls the length of the reverb even though the units are db which does not make sense.   This adds just a little "bounce" or "punch" which makes the piano sound more realistic especially for live play.   The  effect is subtle but noticable, and I think an improvement.   I decided I prefer to add this effect to PT directly since such a resonance would be part of the piano sound.  I can add room reverb with an external IR program if I feel like it.  Anyway, I think this approach is an improvement, though sometimes I wonder if I'm fooling myself.   (one has to be careful, since if you increase the volume, you may think it sounds "better", etc).

Last edited by varpa (01-08-2012 03:15)

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

varpa wrote:

the units are db which does not make sense.

You are right, it should be dB/s

Re: Adding more resonance to PianoTEQ w/ sample. What do you think?

nightwatch, thanks for those IR's.

They were beneficial for a mix-down I had to do using Sample Modeling's Ms Sax S, plain sampled drums and electric bass, and Pianoteq. The effect is subtle, but unmistakable, adding character to the sound, and I was pleased with the results. I used Samplitude's convolution engine, rather than hosting the IR's in Pianoteq. Unfortunately, I am probably now addicted to this vice :-(