piano modeling?

The next, possibly very stupid, question that's been on my mind since Pro was released, is (and this is not meant in any way as criticism):

"What tools for creating a piano from scratch do Modartt have available to them that a Pro user doesn't?"

Or, phrased a different way, if someone other than Modartt were to make a commercial add-on for PTQ - as I have assisted several others to do for the Hauptwerk Virtual Organ - how would they go about it? Let's assume they already have a full sample record of the target piano. 

Am I correct in thinking that a Pro user can not take for example a single middle C from the C3 preset and transform it into Middle C for YC5?  Even with Pro, I imagine that there are many settings which are not user-adjustable.

Best//Neil

No, I have asked the same question some time ago and was told that they themselves use a bunch of parameters the size of a Jumboject cockpit!
I did not get a definite answer on ho to be able to make a ptq-file...
They only talked about fxp-files..
Pianoteq Pro itself does not have any extra export options - only fxp can be exported.

Well it's not 'just tweaking the same parameters'...
there's more to it than that..
Especially the Spectrum profile gives a whole bunch more of possibilities.
And yes - indeed the note by note edit option is a lot more powerful than the standard version.
You can actually build an fxp with a sort of split keyboard if you'd like.

But I would  be very interested to know what Modartt's own parameter options are for designing a sound.

And who knows maybe some day there will be some sort of morph option available where multiple piano models can be combined - but if at all that would take a whole lot of extra processing power I assume...

I agree that more tutorials would be good.

If Pianoteq were an Open Source project, every single parameter would be made accessible to everyone.

But Modartt is a small company who wants to make some money developing and selling the (IMO) best, most innovative, software piano on the market.

I think, that if they would make EVERY single parameter of the Piano Models editable by the user, it would be easier for the competition to make a Pianoteq-like instrument or software using reverse-engineering.

Even though I'm a great fan of Open Source (I'm a Linux user) I can also understand Modartt's wish to make some money. If it helps them to make a superb product, everyone is happy - including me.

I need more from the Pro version to entice me to buy. I would like to see the ability to shape sounds more, possibly changing the fundamental waveform that is used for the string sound. It would be very interesting to be able to load any waveform in place of the default...

JR

While true, this absolutely is _not_ the purpose of Pianoteq.  You _really_ want a synth based on complex piano mechanics, but we're all SOL on that one for now.  ;^)

As Neil said above, the complexity of the Pianoteq "master laboratory" is, most likely, STAGGERING.  The _next_ step (or, honestly, giant leap) for our dream-team to make is the creation of "Pianoteq Factory" (or the like), but this involves simplifying and streamlining an _incredible_ number of components.  We shall not see such a beast for some time...

And I don't mind waiting, because I'd rather have MODARTT focus on further improving/refining the current software _while_ providing additional, high-quality add-ons, provided to us with their collective years of experience and know-how.  (Personally, I'm hoping for a whole _crop_ of new add-ons sometime in the near future -- not because I'm bored with the vibes or the YC5, because I love them _both_, but because I know that they'll do a complete, sincere job.)

(The likelihood of making a _bad_ instrument from manipulating the "deep" parameters is probably very easy;  what we definitely _don't_ need are a bunch of ham-fisted attempts at new piano intstruments, concocted by users who would be fumbling about blindly [at first, at least].  This would only damage Pianoteq's reputation.)

On the "number of possible parameters" subject, here are some of my musings whilst I recover (I hope) from "Pandemic Flu:"

[Warning:  I'm perhaps slightly delerious]

Conventional synthesis/sample manipulation software is too complex and the majority of controls bear no resemblance to the physical processes in the real world we're trying to replicate.  This is one reason that physical modeling appeals to me.  The former is like reverse-engineering nature.  Physical modeling is more like copying nature.

What bothers me is, how many of the presumed parameters are purely mathematical and have little or no relation to physical components/processes/construction in an instrument? 

As a sort of example from the current user interface, take the harmonics manipulation section:

We know that piano makers try to limit  a certain harmonic/overtone as it doesn't sound nice.  Fine.  We have a "harmonic equalizer" to deal with this.  Problem:  A piano maker doesn't have a harmonic equalizer.  He has a ruler.  Enter PTQ 3.5.  Now (and more so for Pro users) we can set the hammer strike position ourselves.

But we still have the "harmonic equalizer," and now some of us have it for every single note.  What is this control-set a substitute for?

I can only surmise that this is present because there are other piano construction details which affect harmonic developement, which we *don't* have access to. Maybe  Modartt doesn't have access to them either.  Maybe not all components of  piano tone production can be measured and therefore expressed mathematically.

Let's say we approached Yamaha, Steinway and Bosendorfer and asked them all to make a piano.  They have to use the same wood stock for the soundboard and case, and the string A0 sounding lengths have to be the same, but other than that, they can use their own methods.

We will assume that the 3 pianos sound quite different from each other and recognizable as the work of the particular builders.  What factors other than the ones we "fixed"  are responsible for the differences?

Can these parameters all be defined?  How much effect does the individual action mechanism of each piano affect the tone, and in what ways? 

Listen to Francois-Joel Thiollier's Debussy  recordings on Naxos and try to work out what causes the strange "buzzing" tone of his piano (also present on a couple of notes of the Bosendorfer in the East West library).  I don't know who made that particular piano, but I do know there is nothing in PTQ that sounds anything like it.

Do all piano makers use the same string length scaling charts?  What I mean is, if our 3 pianos had an A0 string length of 1.8m, would they all have the same string length at middle C?.  Let's say the lengths are the same, but the wire gauges aren't.  What happens now?

What about hammer shape and size, i.e. size of the contact patch with the strings?  How much influence does that have?

What about bridge construction?

What else could usefully be made available in PTQ Pro that I haven't considered?

When Modartt work on a new piano model, what do we think they do, actually?  Obviously the piano is recorded accurately, note-by-note (where possible) and I presume accurate physical measurements are made also, but what data really goes into the modeling process?  How much FFT analysis of the real piano is used to produce a PTQ file and in what way is that data used? 

Philippe has  said  before that due to current computer capabilities, certain components have to be pre-determined to save  CPU cycles.  I wonder what those components are and whether the offline calculations for them are the same for each piano model or computed separately?

Best//Neil

Thanks for the kind words. It's day 8 now and a toss-up between H1N1 and Mumps for feeling "the worst ever." At least this time I don't look like a hamster.

Hmm, Variax.  I have a PodXTLive and while it sounds better with my ESP H-1000 (with EMG actives) rather than with my Ibanez JS-1200 (which I sold this year and actually hated) I  still can't get on with it.  I think Native Instruments' Guitar Rig is better (especially the Bogner clone), although less portable, but still in another league entirely from the Fractal Audio AxeFX which no way could I afford to buy.  I  think the Variax falls down because it's  Piezo, and will always have the funny Piezo attack which is neither acoustic nor electric (you know what I mean, even though actually it's both).  It's certainly an interesting idea though.

Another complicating factor for realism (back to Piano  now)  is definitely the replaying system.  I once read that for convincing reproduction of  a flute and piano  performance, a system would require a minimum of  300W of electrical power to match the acoustic power generated in reality.  Then again, it never  ceases to amaze me how much noise acoustic instruments  generate, seemingly  effortlessly.

I mostly play Piano through high-quality headphones as I live in a terraced house, and I listen at a level which is comparable to sitting at a real grand.  I'd have to say that  certainly  since 3.5 came around, the experience is very close to that of a real piano, just not the exact piano I wish it was.

Best//Neil

Well they'd definitely sound different, and the touch would not be the same.

But here's the kicker that may increase your delirium.

If each manufacturer made four seemingly identical models, there would be noticeable variation between the pianos of the same manufacturer.

I personally am aware of two instances where a purchaser traveled to New York (prearranged of course), and "test drove" a stable of four or five pianos.  The procedure lasted several days to a week.  The pianos tested were of the same make/model, and visually appeared identical.

The pianos were all in the same room.

After much listening and deliberation, one piano was selected as being the "best".

The cases were:  School of Music, University of Regina (where I lived in the '70's and '80's) and the Royal Theater, Victoria, BC (where I presently live).

Glenn