How Good Is Your Sound System? (Page 1 of 2)

I'm using a 25\96 soundcard now, but for a time, after a fire, I had to use my computer's on-board card. Hard to believe the difference it makes.

But I've been guilty, too, of posting presets that sounded good to me at the time, and then later finding them bad. I'm not sure why--possibly headphone fatigue sets in? Or maybe I focus on getting one aspect of the sound right, but miss other things? I recall creating one preset that had a terribly loud hammer attack, but I didn't notice it until weeks later.

And there's the question of monitors\speakers.

Hi, Glenn!

I have been wanting to purchase Pianoteq so I could make recordings of my pianos solos to be burnt to CDs and given to friends who would care to listen.

In all probability, most of them would not be audiophiles and would therefore play the tracks through ordinary household stereo systems, which I believe would be more or less the same bad quality as onboard Realtek audio interfaces.

If the difference between ordinary sound systems and pro sound systems is as much as you have experienced, then I am somewhat doubtful that pianoteq would sound nice in ordinary stereo sets.

Did you use the same amp and speakers with Realtek that you previously used with your EMU soundcard?

Good question. But I think that most of modartt's critical listening is done with quality headphones rather than a monitor setup. It is extremely difficult to simulate the real 3D acoustics of a piano output, unless you have a room and multi-speaker setup especially designed for that purpose.

I own a rather costly multi-channel hifi system which doesn't, to my ears, recreate the sound of a real piano in the listening room if I play pianoteq or any other electronic piano through it, although recordings of a real piano made in a concert hall sound extremely realistic.

Producing an reproducing sound are very different problems in my opinion. The main advantage of headphones is to separate you from the local acoustics which are usually not adequate for producing sound.

I got rid of my large Kawai upright because I moved from a large carpeted room where it sounded adequate to a small cubic (the worst case!) wood floor room where I had to keep my foot on the soft pedal at all time!

BUT, if modartt has set up a special studio for critical listening, I would be very interested in knowing about it!

Good points.  I particularly agree about the headphones.

Glenn

I would like to write a bit more about the difference between producing and reproducing.

There is one thing I find in the new C3 preset that really amazes me, and that is not present in other presets, or in version 3.0 of the C3. I'm talking about the new overtones that seem to come either from a new soundboard model or the new duplex scale, I can't really pinpoint where it comes from, but, to my ear it fits admirably Chopin piano pieces, the really full-sounding ones like the Ballades and Scherzi, as played on a Steinway.

I think this preset is the closest one to the real thing yet...The resonance I am talking about is the one you get for instance when hitting forte the octave (B0 flat, B1 flat).

The reason I talk about reproducing, is that I will try to demonstrate this by tweaking the C3 solo recording preset until, when applied to a really well-played midi file of the Chopin Ballade No. 4 in F Minor, Op. 52 found here :

http://www.piano-e-competition.com/midi_2006.asp#E

it reminds me a lot of CD versions I have.

It is interesting to compare the fxp I just uploaded to others uploaded recently which seem to try to attain more a sound-producing goal, i.e. a playable piano that sounds like another one that you can also play side by side as a comparison.

I uploaded the midi file and the fxp and also a mp3 because the piece is very cpu intensive and you may hear a lot of audio crackles...I think we are all due for new faster computers if we want to exploit the pro version to its fullest

Listen to the whole 10 minute piece if you feel like it, and find out for yourself if you agree with me.

FWIW, playing the preset sounds the same as the MP3 on my system, however I did choose the option to remove V3.

Sounds nice - especially thet bass notes. Overall the high pitched metallic overtones sound a bit too harsh though, and ring for too long. (I haven't tried to remedy this yet)

Greg.

I kept 3.0.5 and run 3.5.1 pro version. The damper model has been improved in 3.5 (among other things I suppose) and yes the C3 was revised so the user presets made from the 3.0 version will not sound like the same preset made from 3.5. I just tried this myself with the C3 binaural which I just had slightly modified in 3.0 (head positionning and size) as compared to the factory one. I modified the changes to be the same as the new binaural, and they don't sound the same! AB-ing the two also reveal a lot of differences even in the user available parameters.

So I guess you have to start again from the new C3 if you want to profit from the improved sound. The standard and pro version should have the same C3 model as far as I know. In my case, the factory C3 on 3.0 and the same on 3.5 sound very different, and much better to my ear on 3.5.

Gilles,
Yes, I understand about the soundboard impedance, but in my experience I can never get the sound to be brilliant enough without being harsh. I did quickly try reducing the impedance shortly after posting, and whilst it did of course make the overtones decay more rapidly, I still wasn't satisfied.   As always, when I switch to a sampled piano, I immediately hear quite a big difference - my ears breath a sigh of relief.  In the sampled piano I hear very detailed shimmering overtones - it's bright, but in a subtle shimmering way.  I definitely think 3.5 is better, but still not good enough, at least in terms of basic tone. I know others disagree with me - this is just my opinion.

Greg.

Jake:

What did you actually do to the strike positions?  Which way did you change them?

Glenn

Jake,
Thanks for the FXP. So far I have only listened to the standard demo MIDI in Pianoteq and played single notes from the Pianoteq keyboard.  I don't think it's the answer to all my problems yet but I'll listen more later.

Note that I'm not necessarily referring to rock piano sounds when I talk about metallic overtones.  Even in good classical recordings, and even for SOFT notes, there is often a very delicate metallic quality to the sound - it conjures up an image of STEEL strings vibrating against a STEEL bridge. (I don't even know what a bridge is made of, but this is the image that is conjured up in my mind). I simply don't hear this subtle metallic quality in Pianoteq yet.  I do hear metallic ringing sounds in Pianoteq, but overall it's not realistic and rich enough.
Just plucking an example out of iTunes - the first track in this album has soft playing, with the metallic quality:
http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/steinw...d256408677 

Greg.

Thanks for the MP3. The sound is dry, and harsh. I can tell that you are trying to achieve what I am seeking, but it still sounds a fair way off IMHO.

I'd be interested to know whether you can hear the subtle metallic qualities in that soft classical recording.
(have you got iTunes yet?!?!

Greg.

(I still need to listen to the i-tunes piece that you indicated--I only downloaded i-tunes last night and I'll listen tonight.)

Hi all:
I run S/PDIF coaxial or Toslink digital out of my Mac to a Grace m902 D/A converter and headphone amp. From there to well broken-in AKG 701 headphones.  This is a pretty high quality reference system.  The difference in piano sound is dramatic. A have some old AKG K240 headphones, which aren't bad, but still the piano is way more realistic w/the reference setup. I also run to equalized Yamaha HS50 powered monitors and at some point will burn CDs for transfer to a subwoofered Mackie H824 system.

I haven't spent a lot of time tweaking the presets as yet, and have only played with the YC5 demo, but at this point I prefer the C3, sometimes modified a bit by upping the hammer hardness @pp and mp. I think the playback system has a huge impact on the realism of the sound. There is detail in the C3 that I can't hear when played by my other systems. I started with 2.x and have just been updating as per normal with no new hard install that I remember.

Of course, I'm going to have to cross-reference any pieces with other systems to get the best real world compromise, but it's a joy to play the piano into the headphones, particularly after maxing the sample rate and minimizing the buffer to essentially get rid of latency. Disclaimer: I'm not a pianist, but a composer and synthesist, so I may not hear everything some of you folks are sensitive to, but I listen carefully. My two cents anyway...

On my iMac, I can do exactly the same settings without crackling until the voice count climbs to just around 200 with 3.5.1.  With an octo, you _shouldn't_ have any problems at all -- or do you?

Skip,

I installed itunes, but when I double-clicked on the recording that you referenced, the message that appeared said that the file was not available in the US. (So aol is not the only company with geographic limits...? What's going on with distribution rights?)

Could you suggest another recording that has the sound that you want?

I understand your quest for a pianoteq preset that emulates the best sampled Steinways which can be mellow and resonant at the same time when well played.

I listened to the Horowitz Bach/Busoni prelude that you mentioned (I have a CD of it, but another performance) and tried to get the sound Mr. H. gets here using his very subtle ppp fingering along with partial pedalling.

I didn't succed completely of course but I uploaded a mellower version of my previous fxp which may be less harsh to your ears while being resonant when played forte.

I went back for the first time in maybe 6 months to my Sampletekk Black Grand under GigaStudio to play the Chopin Ballade midi file, and I was really unimpressed. Each note may sound Steinway-like but they don't blend...I'ts incredible how this blending is much better done with pianoteq and the basic tone is not that different from that Sampletekk Steinway D.

With the samples I hear a midi file playback, while with pianoteq it feels like a real performance.

Feel free to comment the fxp if you want

Thanks for the comments, Greg. I guess it all comes down as a matter of taste then...I kept the overtones because in my opinion they are part of the "steinway" sound as I hear it, but maybe they are too prominent when playing that midi file where I guess the player has "fingers of steel" and can play those fast runs with much more energy than I ever could.

When I play with it myself, this fxp pleases me more than the previous one in the sense that I like how it responds to my fingers. When I play, the overtones are less present than on the Chopin piece, and the mellower center octaves take away the harshness for me. It reminds me a lot of concert pianos I played on briefly from time to time, when I had a chance.

I ran a number of other midi files from the site, and depending on the player and the piece, sometimes one of the fxp was better than the other to my ear. But both are somehow satisfactory for me.

As for the Black Grand, I thought afterwards that it might be all this partial pedalling that confuses GigaStudio, while pianoteq handles them perfectly, so the pedalling might have been badly interpreted or ignored at times with that file.

I liked the sampletekk piano when I played it (I bought it because the demos sound wonderful), but I don't get the "real instrument" feel that I get with pianoteq.

Gilles,
Regarding the delicate metallic overtones for soft playing, I can sorta kinda hear some of that in your FXP, yes. It just doesn't have the exquisite detail of the real thing yet though. 

In order to retain the very long sustain of your FXP (i.e, without decreasing Impedance), but to make it less harsh, increasing the soundboard Q Factor helps. However, the problem with this is that then some of the high frequency detail goes away.  I don't think either FXP is acceptable as is though - no way at all. It is too harsh for me - not only does it not sound realistic, but it doesn't sound good. (mainly for MF and above playing). The bass register does sound pretty good and realistic though.  I have no complaints of harshness with the standard C3 presets.

Overall it's a very big lush sound, and in *some* ways better than a real Steinway, probably.

Jake: I had someone in the U.S test that iTunes link, and they said that they got a message that it was not available in the U.S store, but that it is available in the Australian store. They were able to switch to the Australian store and then preview it or buy it. (they didn't actually buy it, but it appeared that this was possible). Maybe could see whether you can change to the Australian store.

Greg.

Jake,
Thanks for the suggestions - I haven't tried them yet.

Yes, those two recordings sound excellent! Even though the sound is sort of deep and mellow, there are still subtle metallic overtones, which makes the sound "complete", and clear.  There is a nice deep sonorous tone, and yet there is also the metal "icing".

Also, can you hear the very bright "metallic spit" in some of the attacks? It's a very bright, metallic sound which decays VERY rapidly. It gives the attacks a very pleasing "bite", before the mellow sonorous sustain.

Have you listened to the Art Vista demo link I posted? That too is very much a direction I want to go in!

Note that I'm currently a cheapskate using the Standard version of Pianoteq, so I can't change the unison tuning on a per-note basis.

Greg.
p.s I'm ducking your AOL revenge question.

To reduce the effect you don't like and to sound more like the demos of real pianos played softly submitted by Jake, I suggest closing the lid to about 0.25 on the mellower preset.

The lid interacts a lot more with the microphones in this version of pianoteq. Having the lid fully opened reminds me of the sound I heard while trying to tune my large upright with the front panel off and ears very close to the soundboard.

I think I may try to find examples in my CD collection of the lush sound I was after for Chopin pieces and post a short bit just to prove it really exists outside my imagination. But then maybe it's just my ears that are getting too old and need exagerated highs...

A good example of a razor sharp bright piano is the piano in the pop song "Killer Queen".  I most certainly do not hear one iota of badness in this sound, despite the fact it's very bright. (who knows what racks of effects the piano was run through though)

Greg.

Thanks - much appreciated!

I don't like the recordings much - it's a very big thick sound, but for some reason I just don't like it. It's just not a CLEAR sound.  Nevertheless, I don't really hear the harsh overtones/resonances that I hear in your FXPs in their current state.  I do agree with you that you are heading in the right direction for this sound though.

Btw I would not use the word "lush" for these recordings - that's too generous.

Maybe I just don't want an authentic Steinway!

Greg.

(Just occurred to me that I talked about reducing the unison width and pasted those demo piano sounds in the same post--the demo's, of course, have fairly widely detunded unisons. The linked files aren't meant to illustrate the sound of reduced unisons and increased dd. I do think the 2nd partial is a little lower in the sound on those recordings though.)

Here's a CD that has a bit of objectionable metallic quality in it, sort of reminiscent of the Gilles presets:
http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/500-00...d154039746

I like the very clear bright sound but it sounds like it has just a touch of flanging effect added to it, and I don't like that.
I have learnt that the "modulation" effect in reverbs can cause this, though, so it is possible that this objectionable sound was introduced by running the recording through a reverb with some modulation applied.(?) If it has, then it would be interesting to know whether I would still find it objectionable without the reverb processing.  (and of course, I will never know)

Greg.