Is 4.2 needed to run this? I've registered the add-on, updated the licence. In Licence info on the about tab in Pianoteq, Bluethner is there along with YC5 Electric etc., but there are no Bluethner piano in the FXP instrument list.
Looking forward to getting this up and running.
Yes the Blüthner requires version 4.2 (it is embedded in v4.2)
Great...thank you...
It's up and running...and it's excellent. Very impressive.
I generally like my pianos bright, so I was tentative about purchasing this, but I think this is absolutely exquisite. Well done!
Great...thank you...
It's up and running...and it's excellent. Very impressive.
I generally like my pianos bright, so I was tentative about purchasing this, but I think this is absolutely exquisite. Well done!
One thing that is I run into on a regular basis with Pianoteq and other software piano sounds is that it always sounds great when I hear it online but when I put it on my equipment it never sounds quite that good.
It would be helpful if someone, like yourself, who describes the sound they get as "absolutely exquisite" to indicate the equipment that is delivering that "exquisite" sound.
I am running my software on a Dell computer (very fast) with a huge, fast disc. Then the sound comes out through a Behringer UCA202 audio device and then through a Behringer XENYX 502 Mixer and out through my two Yamaha HS80M Powered Monitor Speakers.
I had a local stereo shoppe guy in here looking into improving my sound and he said he could not improve significantly on what I already have.
However, I have pianoteq 4.2 and have tried this new piano sound and ... well, it is ok but it doesn't even come close to what I hear with the demos on this site.
Any suggestions ?
[...]
However, I have pianoteq 4.2 and have tried this new piano sound and ... well, it is ok but it doesn't even come close to what I hear with the demos on this site.
This is strange because all demos were recorded with the default presets (mentioned on the demo page), with sometimes some minor changes in the reverb and the stereo width (that was just a matter of taste) and absolutely no post-processing. All classical MIDI files used for the Blüthner demos were downloaded from the e-competition http://www.piano-e-competition.com/ where you can find many excellent performances. Are you listening in the same conditions?
I am running my software on a Dell computer (very fast) with a huge, fast disc. Then the sound comes out through a Behringer UCA202 audio device and then through a Behringer XENYX 502 Mixer and out through my two Yamaha HS80M Powered Monitor Speakers.
Honestly? Your problems are called Behringer first and HS80M second.
ddascher wrote:I am running my software on a Dell computer (very fast) with a huge, fast disc. Then the sound comes out through a Behringer UCA202 audio device and then through a Behringer XENYX 502 Mixer and out through my two Yamaha HS80M Powered Monitor Speakers.
Honestly? Your problems are called Behringer first and HS80M second.
Well, if we have identified the problem ... the next step is to work on a solution to those problems.
Any suggestions that won't break the bank ?
Are you listening in the same conditions?
Well, there lies the issue. Apparently, the path the sound takes prior to reaching my ears is of insufficient quality to reproduce the sound I hear on the demos.
I am open to suggestions.
Sorry for the silly question, but can't you listen to Pianoteq (when you are playing) by using the same audio path you are using for listening to the demos?
Sorry for the silly question, but can't you listen to Pianoteq (when you are playing) by using the same audio path you are using for listening to the demos?
So, you are suggesting that I try to find a way to take the sound I hear from the demos through my computer speakers and re-route it through my Behringer audio device so it will then pass on through my mixer and ultimately out my Yamaha monitors.
I will look into it.
EDIT:
Well, I looked into it and no problem. I was able to do that.
Now, the issue appears to be that the players doing the demonstrations are superb pianists and the music they play may add to the attractiveness of the sound without regard for the actual quality of the sound itself. That is not to say you shouldn't do that , but only that it may be the source of the difference the sound I hear me playing compared to the sound they seem to produce.
It might be interesting to hear a demo of a simple piano sound such as a scale played entirely without any additional supporting background accompaniment so one might try to reproduce the exact tones on the demo and see if they are, indeed, identical in sound to that demo. Just a thought.
Anyway, thank you for responding and for your suggestion. I am sure it will be of assistance for me in identifying the problem, if there is a problem.
Well, I thought you wanted to go the other route, the one that gives you a sound you like when listening to the demos (how are you listening to them btw?) - letting pianoteq go the route used when you listen to the demos. But maybe this is not feasible?
Well, I thought you wanted to go the other route, the one that gives you a sound you like when listening to the demos (how are you listening to them btw?) - letting pianoteq go the route used when you listen to the demos. But maybe this is not feasible?
Well, that would mean I would have to set the output sound setting on the pianoteq software to be my computer speakers. I am not sure that this is even possible but I will look into that also. It certainly would not think it would produce a better sound than my Yamaha monitors ... but who knows.
I will look into that also.
EDIT:
Ok, I was able to do that also. I just set the audio device to WINDOWS AUDIO within Pianoteq.
Interestingly enough the sound does sound nicer (more musical, soft, etc ...). However, the latency is horrific.
But that might be a clue that my sound system could be improved with .... (fill in the blanks).
Any suggestions going forward ?
Good. Next step is that you use ASIO drivers (google ASIO for all, it's free) to get rid of the latency.
I don't want to add wood to the fire, but some people on web may read this topic and start evil expeculations about Moddart mp3 samples.
So what I friendly suggest is that each midi file and FXP used for each mp3 recording be available, and also the mp3 settings used to encode the audio.
This will prove the mp3 was recorded honestly and put a end on any expeculation before it start.
fs you are using a digitasl piano and it have audio imputs for the speakers (most DP have), you can buy a cable to connect the slim sound output from your PC to the DP's speaker (larger connecionr).
Iden in case of sound monitors.
I often used my DP speakers as speakers for my PC, connecting with the special cable, and the sound samples on pianoteq website always sounded like the real pianoteq software. I can say that cause Niclas once send me some MIDI files used to record the MP3 samples on pianoteq.
Another thing, be careful with sound saturation. Do not let one source, PC sound adjust, software or speaker, in full volume.
Good. Next step is that you use ASIO drivers (google ASIO for all, it's free) to get rid of the latency.
Well, to clarify ...
When I go go options in Pianoteq and look at AUDIO DEVICE TYPE, my options are ASIO, WINDOWS AUDIO, DIRECT SOUND. If I select ASIO, I only have one option available in the DEVICE box and that option is the BEHRINGER USB AUDIO. If I select either of the other two options, I have multiple options for the DEVICE.
So, it appears if I wish to use the ASIO driver, I can only use the route to my Yamaha Monitors.
EDIT:
I just investigated a little deeper and it appears that the ASIO driver that I have installed is associated with BEHRINGER products. So, I am hoping that what that means is that there is a more general ASIO driver available (ASIO_FOR_ALL ?) that I can install and select and it will then give me the additional options I need for the DEVICE.
Of course, the final obstacle is getting the sound to a speaker system that can be used for playing a piano. My computer speakers do not qualify for that.
EDIT:
It appears there are many place to download ASIO4ALL. Any particular place best ?
Then, do I just run (install) it and bring up Pianoteq and it will appear in the list of options ?
UPDATE:
I forged ahead and downloaded ASIO4ALL and installed it. However, when I go back into Pianoteq and look into my options, it does not show up as an option.
UPDATE:
Correction, it does show up ... but as a DEVICE. I expected it to be in the AUDIO DEVICE TYPE BOX.
So, anyway ... I selected ASIO4ALL as my device and it has reduced the latency to a reasonable amount.
I will now spend some time playing through my computer speakers to see if it sounds the way I would expect.
Thanks for your help.
fs you are using a digitasl piano and it have audio imputs for the speakers (most DP have), you can buy a cable to connect the slim sound output from your PC to the DP's speaker (larger connecionr).
Iden in case of sound monitors.
Well, I am not sure what all this stuff is that you refer to.
However, I can tell you this ...
The back of my computer has what is described as an S/PDIF CONNECTOR. It says it is for connecting to amplifiers, speakers, or TVs for digital audio output through optical cables. Is that of value for me ?
Other than that I have audio outputs for surround sound options and another for Center / Subwoofer speaker connectors.
ddascher, to answer your initial question...my system is fairly humble. An older Echo Gina soundcard, running through a small tapco mixer into Yamaha MSP5 powered studio monitors. My computer is fast, and this makes pteq very playable, but your question is more about sound quality. In the initital post I mentioned I like my pianos bright, and I do tend to adjust the voicing to brighten this up. However, I've played my own demos and the Modartt demos through my hi-fi (again fairly humble -Yamaha amp, "Monitor Audio" speakers), and clearly there is no trickery whatsoever, my own demos have the same sound quality as the Modartt ones. I have all the piano addons and this is by far my favourite and seemingly most realistic.
Now....are my eyes seeing things....I was sure that on the website earlier today, Blüthner was spelled Bluethner...hence my spelling for this post...and, of course, I know that it is meant to be Blüthner, but I thought maybe there was some copyright issue, hence "Bluethner"....but now, when I look it all seems the correct spelling??!!? Was I seeing things?
Well, I now have things running through my computer via the ASIO4ALL device and am monitoring it through my headphones and from what I am hearing it sounds pretty good.
Let's just assume the sound is better through this path than through my Behringer equipment and Yamaha Monitors. If that is the case, can I assume I should look into a quality amplifier + some quality hifi speakers to get this sound out into the air with better quality ?
[...]
One thing that is I run into on a regular basis with Pianoteq and other software piano sounds is that it always sounds great when I hear it online but when I put it on my equipment it never sounds quite that good.
[...]
Any suggestions ?
Hello Don,
I have read this thread more than three times before deciding to reply. Here are some of my thoughts on this subject:
It is very interesting that you stated Pianoteq ... and other piano software ... sounds great when heard online, but doesn't sound as good on your equipment (despite receiving approval about your sound system from a local audiophile). The fact that more than one sound source does not sound the same, suggests there might be a level or impedance mismatch (preamp overload, perhaps?) that is driving your otherwise good equipment insane.
Another thought is that perhaps you are playing harder (higher note-on velocities) than what is being created in the demos that might cause the various software pianos to sound brittle, and possibly run out of headroom.
Here is something I would propose: Would you be so kind as to make a standard midi file of some of your playing -- either an excerpt from a favorite piece, or even some arpeggios / chords / scales that do not sound up to par with the demos? If you would post it in this website, I will gladly download it, listen to it, classify how your velocities and pedalling are, ... and then see if I might rework that same midi file in a way similar to the way I make demos for Pianoteq. This might be a great learning experience for everyone in this forum!
It doesn't have to be note perfect, and it doesn't have to be very long or technical -- just something in a midi file that represents what you think does not "measure up" to the demos. Without knowing how you play, I would check for legato vs. staccato playing, a preponderance of either high side vs. low side velocities, your pedaling, etc.
I will be glad to furnish mp3 files of the "before" and "after" (reworking) conditions, and will return a modified midi file, if it is sufficiently different from yours.
Cheers,
Joe
Now....are my eyes seeing things....I was sure that on the website earlier today, Blüthner was spelled Bluethner...hence my spelling for this post...and, of course, I know that it is meant to be Blüthner, but I thought maybe there was some copyright issue, hence "Bluethner"....but now, when I look it all seems the correct spelling??!!? Was I seeing things?
"ue" is substitution diphtong for writing "ü". This is probably done so that non-Unicode systems don't have messed up display of that word.
Here is something I would propose: Would you be so kind as to make a standard midi file of some of your playing -- either an excerpt from a favorite piece, or even some arpeggios / chords / scales that do not sound up to par with the demos? If you would post it in this website, I will gladly download it, listen to it, classify how your velocities and pedalling are, ... and then see if I might rework that same midi file in a way similar to the way I make demos for Pianoteq. This might be a great learning experience for everyone in this forum!
Done !
I uploaded a file called ... ddascher_gavotte.mid ... into the other files area.
This should be interesting. Thanks.
"ue" is substitution diphtong for writing "ü". This is probably done so that non-Unicode systems don't have messed up display of that word.
Phew! I wasn't seeing things!
One thing that is I run into on a regular basis with Pianoteq and other software piano sounds is that it always sounds great when I hear it online but when I put it on my equipment it never sounds quite that good.
First of all: hello to everyone. Although I have been using Ptq for quite some time now, today I decided to register at the forum.
From experimenting with Ptq, I learned that it is extremely difficult to get the sound right. For example: using my CLP 157 (digital piano) audio system requires a different preset than my other audio system, consisting of Quad 303 -> Kef 104/2 (yes, old but nothing better found yet...).
Comparing with different audio systems is - like we say in NL - comparing apples with pears.
I would recommend to start experimenting with the equalizer. If you have the Pro version, I would experiment with the microphone positions, too.
Many audio systems "colour" the sound, not only because of the environment (reflections etc. around the speakers), but also because the frequency and phase response is never flat.
Regards and enjoy!
Wave
BTW: bought the Bluethner add-on: worth every penny!
I would recommend to start experimenting with the equalizer. If you have the Pro version, I would experiment with the microphone positions, too.
Well, to be clear. I am not trying to create a sound that I like out of nowhere.
I like the sound of the demos. I just want to hear that sound through my equipment.
I shouldn't have to do a lot of tweaking to accomplish that. Otherwise, what is the point of even including presets ?
I am willing to do a little of that but I pretty much leave that to the experts creating the presets. I assume they are trying to create sounds that they think we (their customers) will like. I should not have to do no more than to run through the presets, pick one, and then perhaps a little tweaking. That's it.
I would like to get a list of equipment that others are using to get the sound from their computer to their ears.
Then I could look that stuff up on the internet, see if I can afford it, discuss it with other experts, and decide what to do.
Then, if that didn't result in improvement, I could send it all back and try something else.
And, on and on and on ...
My equipment:
Toshiba A-665-16K laptop, i5 2.67 GHz, 8 GB RAM, using onboard soundcard and output through my BeyerDynamic DT 880 headphones.
Currently awaiting my new PC, which will kick some ass. I have TC Electronic Impact Twin audio interface that's going to be used with that PC (and which I used extremely well with my previous XP machine), and Kurzweil KS-40A powered monitors (cheap, but they work really surprisingly well!). I plan to move on to Adam A7X later on.
What I now use is centrally headphones. Sennheiser HD 600 specifically, on the recommend of a poster here (Bebop603?) at first, but I've since read a heap of user reviews all of whom rave (look up Amazon for a bunch). The price on Amazon is stiff but I found an HK supplier $100 cheaper ($288, free shipping too).
My essential rave point (though all what the other ravers say is true) and the HD 600 personal gift, to me, is on first wearing I got a clear stereo image of my PTQ (with my own PTQ-internal miking, chasing a personal obsession as to what piano solo sound should convey). Where previously that image had been so fugitively-present I doubted my own hearing, now those doubts were removed. Subsequent hearing says the image isn't NOTE-precise, but is pretty near it. Lucid. It clarifies what's where with bass and treble (true incidentally with Modartt's Bluthner MP3s, which haven't my own miking).
Downside is that atop of HD 600's price a headphone amp is needed to drive them. I'll refrain from specifying what I went for, unless you press, because it is entangled with the Windows' Directsound mess, complexly of course, and why should you put up with it? Windows-free is simpler.
Now an upside. Though not to the very same samples as you've been hearing, which are probably drawn from the Minnesota e-piano Competition's latest year, I've been listening to 2009, to Eric Zuber specifically (think he placed fifth), and to the Disklavier rendition.
Take his Liszt Sonata. Made a believer in Bluthner out of me. Thunderous? Sparkle? Lord! Second movement of his Schubert sonata (these sonatas are #s 8 and 9 of his competition) is wonderful at the controlled end of the range too - a brown study while rain drips onto the window-sill.
Now, if I go for Disklavier renditions listening, why wouldn't Moddartt go for them, making MP3 samples to listen to? Particularly when they bothered to make Pianoteq a Disklavier-interpreter?
So a likely answer to the difference you hear is just that (though good headphones help). Hunt up the Minnesota midis (probably latest year) for your favorite Modartt samples, and see.
I would like to get a list of equipment that others are using to get the sound from their computer to their ears.
Numa Nero keyboard
10 49 year old fingers connected to the hand bones...
PreSonus AudioBox 22VSL audio interface
Lenovo laptop, i5 2.40 GHz, 6 GB RAM
Yamaha MSP7 powered studio monitors
CME UF80 keyboard
iMac i5
Saffire Pro 24DSP
Old Technics amplifier and Wharfedale Hifi speakers
or Sennheiser HD 430- ore Beyer DT770 headphones
Tannoy Active monitors
pretty used musical ears :-)
jcfelice88keys wrote:Here is something I would propose: Would you be so kind as to make a standard midi file of some of your playing -- either an excerpt from a favorite piece, or even some arpeggios / chords / scales that do not sound up to par with the demos? If you would post it in this website, I will gladly download it, listen to it, classify how your velocities and pedalling are, ... and then see if I might rework that same midi file in a way similar to the way I make demos for Pianoteq. This might be a great learning experience for everyone in this forum!
Done !
I uploaded a file called ... ddascher_gavotte.mid ... into the other files area.
This should be interesting. Thanks.
Hello Don,
Uploaded to the Other Files section, find four mp3 files representing the gavotte you graciously provided as a midi file. Here are the various URLs:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...elice_.mp3
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...retto_.mp3
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...Felice.mp3
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...uthner.mp3
The titles are fairly explanatory. For the benefit of those who have not followed this thread, I rendered your original midi file in the Bluthner Concert Recording preset as an mp3 file.
The other three mp3 files represent:
My rework of your original midi files, by adjusting note-on velocities, and adding only soft pedal.
Additionally, I have performed the gavotte in two playing styles: one in a rubato style, and the other in an allegretto style.
One characteristic I found of your playing (as evidenced by note-on velocities of your original midi file), was that the note-on velocities were rather restricted to the nominally 60 to 80 range. Mind you, I am not criticizing your playing at all!! It is just an observation. I also suspect that you recorded your midi file with the aid of a metronome -- again, this is not a bad thing; it's just an observation. This can tend to leave people's performances not to sound like many of the demo recordings.
Please give the four mp3's a listen. I do not know whether they will sound better (or worse) than Pianoteq sounds in your audio system.
I would be glad to hear what you think how your original midi file sounds when rendered through a different system, and how it sounds in general.
As Philippe has stated earlier, there is absolutely no post processing of the audio. You are listening to the Bluthner as it comes out of the box.
Cheers,
Joe
As Philippe has stated earlier, there is absolutely no post processing of the audio. You are listening to the Bluthner as it comes out of the box.
Cheers,
Joe
I can attest to that as my contributions sound just like they do in my studio.
I'm using a Delta 1010 card.
Monitors are Event ASP8 and Yamaha NS10 with a Bryston 4B amplifier.
Headphones are Sony 7506. V6 and Sennheiser HD650 run through a Mackie 1604VLZ as a headphone amp / routing mixer as well as through my Presonus Central Station.
Once again as Philippe and Joe have stated earlier, there is absolutely no post processing of the audio. You are listening to the Bluthner as it comes out of the box.
I rendered your original midi file in the Bluthner Concert Recording preset as an mp3 file.
I listened through my audio path to my speakers and I can only describe it as "harsh", not something pleasing to me.
You indicated that for the next step you modified the midi file
by adjusting note-on velocities, and adding only soft pedal
.
Listening to that, it sounded much, much better. It had a quiet, calm about it. Very pleasing.
Let me see if I understand what your modifications consisted of ...
[adjusting note-on velocities]
I am guessing that this means that you modified keypress velocities to make them more consistent within a given passage as opposed to the way an amateur might vary them due to improper technique.
[adding only soft pedal]
You added soft pedal in passages where your intent was to get very soft and quiet.
Or did you add softpedal throughout ?
Additionally, I have performed the gavotte in two playing styles: one in a rubato style, and the other in an allegretto style.
The sound of these two files was very nice and clear.
One characteristic I found of your playing (as evidenced by note-on velocities of your original midi file), was that the note-on velocities were rather restricted to the nominally 60 to 80 range.
I do tend to play softly ... probably a side effect of the sound getting harsh when it is too loud.
I also suspect that you recorded your midi file with the aid of a metronome
Well, you missed this one. Unless you are referring to my internal metronome. LOL ...
Playing in-time is one of my things, I guess, especially with these classical standards.
This can tend to leave people's performances not to sound like many of the demo recordings.
Very possible. In fact, as I may have mentioned earlier, I think all demos tend to consist of very beautiful pieces played by accomplished pianists and that, in itself, raises the level of the perceived beauty of the sound.
I would be glad to hear what you think how your original midi file sounds when rendered through a different system, and how it sounds in general.
The sound of the original midi rendered through your system is not appreciably different than what I hear through my software and audio system. After modifying it, it sounds much better.
As Philippe has stated earlier, there is absolutely no post processing of the audio. You are listening to the Bluthner as it comes out of the box.
Does that mean you do not adjust note-on velocities nor do you apply soft-pedal to portions ?
SUMMARY: What I got out of all this is that my audio system is not that far out of whack to warrant wholesale changes to everything immediately.
I also learned some things about how my computer's audio system works and how to interface various external devices and/or software with it. That was worth it, in itself.
Thank you very much for time and effort, I do appreciate it.
Don
Hello Don,
It was my pleasure to listen to, then re-work the velocities, and eventually re-perform the Gavotte you kindly furnished in midi file format.
Uploaded to the Other Files area is my own midi file of my performance of your furnished Gavotte. If you open this file and study its structure in the graphic editor of your DAW, this will enable you to see several aspects of my performance versus your original file. Regarding the soft pedal, you will see that some of the repeated sections make use of the una corda pedal, but definitely NOT throughout the entire piece.
Regarding note on velocities, you will immediately sense that I played with much lower velocities -- in some parts -- and much higher velocities in other parts than your original midi file. Personally, I feel that some of the harshness that people experience happens, because with electronic keyboards, we tend to play with wayyyy too high overall velocity!
Lastly, please notice how I made the left hand subordinate to the right hand, regarding velocity. This is very important! I suppose I do this, because in a real acoustic piano, the combined mass and length of the lower strings cause me to play with a comparatively "light" left hand versus the right hand. I think that too many people miss this point.
Still regarding note velocity, in 2009 I attended the NAMM show in Anaheim, California, USA where all of the top end piano manufacturers displayed their wares. I distinctly remember playing very quietly (actually, respectfully) on a 9' C.F. Bechstein -- when my rapture was interrupted by another person next to me, who was banging the daylights of that other Bechstein. The difference in sounds and timbres were akin to "night and day". While I felt my piano was "singing", the other person's Bechstein piano sounded loud, brash, overly bright, and quite frankly, ugly.
To that end, I truely believe that Pianoteq's D4 and Bluthner virtual pianos behave like the acoustic counterpounts in real life. If one bangs (either intentionally, or unintentionally, via electronic keyboard), these pianos are able to "sing" as well as sound harsh!
Enough of my rambling. Enjoy the midi file.
Cheers,
Joe
Enough of my rambling. Enjoy the midi file.
I did enjoy it.
However, I must say that if I played it like that, given my skill level, my listening audience would automatically assume I was playing in a herky-jerky manner because I did not know the piece very well. LOL ...
Thanks again for your help,
Don
jcfelice88keys wrote:Enough of my rambling. Enjoy the midi file.
I did enjoy it.
However, I must say that if I played it like that, given my skill level, my listening audience would automatically assume I was playing in a herky-jerky manner because I did not know the piece very well. LOL ...
Thanks again for your help,
Don
Hey Don,
Don't worry about what your listening audience would assume; you did a great job! I played this piece with a great deal of rubato (intentionally highly variable tempo), just to bring out the various notes in the gavotte. Of course, a gavotte is a relatively quick dance piece, and it should be played more quickly and in a more strict tempo than I played.
Cheers,
Joe