Topic: Interesting piano comparisons
I found these piano comparisons interesting:
http://www.proaudiovault.com/bdmo-comparison.htm
I'm not sure if this featured in the forum before.
- DonSmith
- Member
- Offline
- Glenn NK
- Member
- Offline
Re: Interesting piano comparisons
I've seen it before, but never carefully read the text:
"These demos were meant to illustrate how close sonically a sampled piano library approaches the sonic qualities of real world acoustic recordings".
1) being sonically similar does not necessarily lead to being playable in real time.
2) the sonic qualities of the original recordings aren't very good; some of them aren't at all flattering to the pianist.
I've had the files on my HDD several times and listened to them all - samples often sound good but don't often play well.
Glenn
__________________________
Procrastination Week has been postponed. Again.
Procrastination Week has been postponed. Again.
- jcfelice88keys
- Member
- Offline
Re: Interesting piano comparisons
Hello Don and Glenn,
This post is not intended to slam a competitor's library; rather, it describes the events that actually happened. Two years ago, I purchased the BDMO library, solely based upon what I heard in the provault.com audio snippets specifically referenced in the opening post of this thread.
My payment of approximately $300USD for the BDMO (Bluethner Digital Model One) library seemed well spent .... for only about two months. From what I recall, essentially one piano was sampled, and then its tonal characteristics were modified by superimposing (convolving perhaps?) the EQs of famous commercial piano recordings onto the original Bluethner samples.
My decision to purchase this library was based on the belief this piano could sound like Glenn Gould's 1955 Goldberg Variations recording, a famous 1959 Chopin recording by Arthur Rubenstein, Paul McCartney's piano sound in the Abbey Road Studios, famous jazz recordings, etc, etc.
While there were no glaring problems with the library, I didn't feel a sense of exhilaration, either. In contrast, I seem to be finding pianistically musical qualities that I like -- almost every time I fire up Pianoteq.
Based upon firsthand playing experience with the BDMO library, Glenn's above comment #1 -- "being sonically similar does not necessarily lead to being playable in real time" -- is especially appropriate in this context of the competitor's library. My apologies to provault.com, in case I offended any one there.
Cheers,
Joe
Last edited by jcfelice88keys (06-01-2010 19:40)
- skip
- Member
- Offline
Re: Interesting piano comparisons
One reason I have not purchased BDMO is in fact due to what I perceived as a lack of timbral range in some of the impulse-response modified demo recordings. I also saw a comment from a reviewer that he often preferred the raw sound to the modified sounds. I concluded that this functionality seemed to be a bit gimicky, and given the price, it didn't seem appropriate for me. I do think some of the demo recordings are excellent though.
Another interesting reason I chose not to buy it is that after listening to REAL recordings of the REAL instrument, I wasn't quite sure that I loved the Bluthner sound.
Greg.
- boehnbr
- Member
- Offline
Re: Interesting piano comparisons
jcfelice88keys wrote:
Hello Don and Glenn,
This post is not intended to slam a competitor's library; rather, it describes the events that actually happened. Two years ago, I purchased the BDMO library, solely based upon what I heard in the provault.com audio snippets specifically referenced in the opening post of this thread.
My payment of approximately $300USD for the BDMO (Bluethner Digital Model One) library seemed well spent .... for only about two months. From what I recall, essentially one piano was sampled, and then its tonal characteristics were modified by superimposing (convolving perhaps?) the EQs of famous commercial piano recordings onto the original Bluethner samples.
My decision to purchase this library was based on the belief this piano could sound like Glenn Gould's 1955 Goldberg Variations recording, a famous 1959 Chopin recording by Arthur Rubenstein, Paul McCartney's piano sound in the Abbey Road Studios, famous jazz recordings, etc, etc.
While there were no glaring problems with the library, I didn't feel a sense of exhilaration, either. In contrast, I seem to be finding pianistically musical qualities that I like -- almost every time I fire up Pianoteq.
Based upon firsthand playing experience with the BDMO library, Glenn's above comment #1 -- "being sonically similar does not necessarily lead to being playable in real time" -- is especially appropriate in this context of the competitor's library. My apologies to provault.com, in case I offended any one there.
Cheers,
Joe
Joe, i own just about all the sample programs except for EWQL - sorry, but i don't own a mainframe - and the BDMO was the one i could never get to sound like i thought it should. it was a shame. maybe that's me being a crappy technical guy, but i always thought i was inside a can while playing. Although i have sworn off sample programs (the grand 3 was the last straw), i like the garritan, and i think jeff over there works very hard at making it better. he has the same "discipline" the pianoteq guys have- keep things moving forward, look at this as a subscription business- not an end product in itself... he's already on 1.04 and working on 1.05. if anybody ever gets a sampled piano "right"- i think it will be them... but it is also why i would buy modartt if it were a public company- modelling technology seems so much more open-ended than sampling.
- sigasa
- Member
- Offline
Re: Interesting piano comparisons
Just been over to Garritan! There's something in the Steinway recordings that Pianoteq definately lacks! I love Pianoteq, don't get me wrong, but there's a certain something that you get with actual recordings that just isn't there in any of the Pianoteq instruments. Call it 'authenticity' if you will. How can Modartt capture that 'realness?' Is it truly possible to capture using modelling? I'm sure it is, but we're not there yet!
- hvaartsen
- Member
- Offline
Re: Interesting piano comparisons
Garritan's piano has a great sound indeed. Pianoteq has a great product I really like but indeed...some of the authenticity of a real piano is a bit missing but playability is at toplevel. So to get the feel of authenticity you'll need a sample at this moment but for playability virtual modelling. I personally think a hybrid situation will do the job (the only way?) just like the new-coming Yamaha CP1, CP5.
Maybe Pianoteq and Garritan should join efforts to build the ultimate virtual piano killerapp ;-)
Last edited by hvaartsen (07-01-2010 09:35)
- skip
- Member
- Offline
Re: Interesting piano comparisons
I'm feeling optimistic that Pianoteq will soon be so close so as not to matter. I really don't think it's got that far to go. I already think it's close enough for the electric pianos. (I know not everyone agrees with me on this)
I like the idea of Pianoteq being "pure" - not contaminated with samples. I know all that matters is the end result, but I'd still prefer Pianoteq to be purely modelled if that is at all possible. (I certainly have nothing against sampled pianos whatsoever, though)
Greg.
Last edited by skip (07-01-2010 12:24)
- curt
- Member
- Offline
Re: Interesting piano comparisons
I confess to being a Garritan player... (hence my shameless plug of it in the 'Zero Latency' thread). But I agree completely with the comments here. The sound of the Garritan combined with the customization and playability of Pianoteq would be such a milestone in virtual pianos!
I think another 10 velocity layers per note (bringing the total to around 20) played through the DSP engine of Pianoteq (lid position, mic/binaural placement, velocity control, resonance adjustments) would result in quite an amazing product.
Today's PCs can certainly deliver the performance requirements for this.
Curt
- DonSmith
- Member
- Offline
Re: Interesting piano comparisons
I love the sound of Pianoteq. I think it sounds very similar to real acoustic piano. If played at a comparative volume to that of an acoustic piano, I find it quite convincing. I feel It could benefit from more power in the engine that drives the general programme. The pro version is the one to go for.
I like the sound of what I hear with the sampled sets too, but I just don't have the capacity to load something like Ivory or Quantum Leap pianos on my computer, even if I deleted all my other software (and operating system ).