Guitarteq coming soon ?

Recently I was messing around and discovered that even just a plain piano sound in Pianoteq sounds VERY similar to an electric guitar if the Damper Duration is turned down to zero. It was C3 I was playing at the time. I then did something else which improved the likeness but I forget what it was. (I think I increased Impedance to give it more sustain)

Greg. (not a guitarist)

Well as a guitarist principally and one who has used tons of sample and synth patches calling themselves guitar, I'd have to say that there is a big difference in how the sounds are generated.  Whether by the fingers or by plectrum, the "pluck" or "strike" of the strings is incredibly variable and any guitar patch simply emulates one mode of attack and becomes immediately recognized as a sterile sample or synth generated.  There are way too many nuances of technique.  And let's not forget strumming, chopping, dampening, harmonics, pull-offs, hammer-ons, thumb popping, a myriad of pick materials from plastics to metals to wood (ebony is cool and I use a rubber pick on fretless electric bass) I love the piano for its consistency, purity and focus on dynamics, harmonics and phrasing.  But the guitar -and sax- rule when it comes to variation in attack and timbre.... IMHO.

Indeed -- such is the beauty of these instruments!  A piano, while it has many variations in sound, basically follows the same envelope -- certain parts are just (de)emphasized with changes in velocity, repetition, and sustain.

(Imagine being able to _move_ each hammer all up and down the length of the string.  The effect would be neat, but essentially just spatial -- or would it? -- because the action remains the same.)

One "solution" to getting more variation in attack & timbre from Pianoteq would be, naturally, envelopes for the dynamics -- keeping them simple or making them complex, however, is the real bugaboo.  One could easily get carried with away with all sorts of variables (e.g., stages, modulations, channels), but trying to make not _too_ much of a mess with the concept would definitely have its virtues! 

(Being able to _dull_ the initial "attack" would be highly-desirable, especially for my tendency toward quiet "ambient" piano.  %^)

This is the _one_ element I would _really_ like to see added, especially if we could do different stages for the dynamics in different channels (even just stereo!).  (Any hint of this coming in the "Pro" version?  ;^)

You just said it twice !  The Pianoteqnicians have enough on their hands with piano and mallet type instruments.  Now it might be cool to see some of that technology used for additional percussion -I have yet to take the time with the existing instruments to tweak them into altered egos, I'm sure there's a bunch of percussion there.  Actually, the classical/nylon guitar would be the easiest to model, but still would end up sterile.  For guitar, you would need a MIDI controller that had a way to pluck at strings with sensors everywhere including the pick and a fretboard with multiple strings and sensors on the finger tips... -sound familiar...?  And on the other foot... I've used MIDI guitars since the Photon to the present incarnations, and trying to play Pianoteq with a guitar controller is really painful.  Now I can score with guitar and then tweak in software... and I can make music, but I can't play the piano on guitar.  If you want to have serious organic control over a synthesized instrument, the best approach is with a wind controller, like a WX5 or the EWI.  Combine those with additional foot controllers and a modeled synth that responds very well to breath control, and you'll have a very expressive timbre shaping electronic instrument... next to Vishnu on a Moog modular.  (...that make take a stretch of the mind)

It's called Line 6.

ALL direct guitar tones are modeled, whether digitally like Line 6 products or via analog like Sansamp. You'd need all 88 keys just to get the variety of pick attack, palm muting, finger picking, hammer-ons, pull-offs, pinch harmonics, natural harmonics, etc. that you can do on any ONE note. Also, some things are way easier to play on guitar.

What they SHOULD do is drumteq!!!

I think it's been said a zillion times on this forum:
let PTQ developement focus on making the best digital piano in the world.
Aren't we all eager for the pro version ;-) ?????

-- Eran

After Yamaha C5 I think pianoteq it's able to recreate any grand piano model with a quite acceptable timbre fidelity.
Why not relise a a Baldwin piano model for the next add-on???

The reason why pianoteq own model, the ones not recreated entirely from a given real piano model, are not fully natural, it's a kind of mistery.   Maybe the fact they combine two or more piano models to create one it's the reason.
Anyway the model improved a lot since the first version.

Now this sounds a bit steep, you know. To a really professional pianist there might be no alternative to a real grand piano, and if Pianoteq was one, there would be no reason why it should be less expensive...
To some other users (like myself) pianoteq is better than a real piano: You get not only a realistic, but even controllable piano sound that can be tweaked in many ways and easilly recorded for a fraction of a real piano's price. Who wants more may pay more (not that I love to pour money down the drain, but good work has to be payed for, right?).

Ah, but there is this detail where (i.e. at which point relative to its length) the string is being excited. This point is fixed in pianos but should be dynamically controllable for harps and cymbaloms for every note (and for guitars BTW. That's what I meant by "halfway between").

Having the best in the standard version (like Mac OSX) is the best choice.

About guitarteq (look a the title, the post talk about that... lol), i don't see why that would be a problem for Pianoteq.
The devellopper has not to rebuilt an all new software, a large party of pianoteq can be use to build a guitarteq.

But for sur, I want one thing in priority, the quality of pianoteq !

Some of your points I agree with.  Personally I would gladly pay extra for a new model of piano, preferably a Bosendorfer 290, modelled to FFF as the Yamaha was.  I would also accept the necessity of (but not necessarily buy myself) a "Pro" version with added features such as note-by-note voicing and other deep editing features. 

As others have said, the problem with the C and M models may be that they're composites in the first place, unlike the Yamaha.  If they don't seek to duplicate a particular example of a particular model of piano, then there are bound to be people who don't get on with aspects of that sound.

With the Yamaha, it is obvious from comments that it doesn't suit everyone and every situation, because it is true to the original and that isn't to everyone's taste.  The defects in the bass and treble extremities are those of the original instrument so the decision is clear: if you like it, buy it.  If you don't, leave it on the shelf.

What I do not accept is that the Pro version should be pitched at correcting the defects of the C and M models themselves (not that it actually has been at any point).  Turning the Rock piano into something else - that's fine.  Start with a true-to-life model and mold it to what you want.  That's a different kettle of fish from creating something more usable out of the basic C and M models which in some respects are what could be called a "Curate's Egg."

Also I do not agree that per-key velocity curves are more important and would have a greater impact than the new mic model.  I have a Yamaha KX8 controller which is certainly not high-end but is vastly more "playable" and better regulated than 95% of acoustic pianos I've come across.  In my view, a large part of the improvement in sound quality from PTQ 2 to 3 came from the mic/acoustic radiating model.

As Joshua and others have said, it is the control aspect of "Guitarteq" that would be the real issue.  It isn't the gear itself which produces the tone of masters such as Steve Vai or Clapton, it's the touch.  No keyboard-based system could ever replicate that - which is true for the vast majority of guitar players as well - and even if it could, it's not worth the lifetime of neuro-muscular adaptation required for a non-guitar playing keyboard player to achieve it.

Or, in other words, "horses for courses."

There is already Harm Visser's Physical Modeling Toolkit for NI's Reaktor.  I already know that however bad I am on guitar, emulating a guitar through a keyboard interface is nearly always going to be worse.  Jordan Rudess a possible exception

Neil

i had already do that with my hardware piano and my guitar amp.

but the result (and the video does not show the opposite) is vvvvvvveeeeeerrrrrrrrryyyyyyy fffffffffffaaaaaarrrrrrr away from a real or a virtual guitar.

PS : his output level is too high !

PS2 : eurkk (sorry but true)