D4 confession

Hi PZ
Well, pianoteq it's in constant development, improving quality after each version, and specially after each model.
I remamber the first pianoteq version, and the first beta version of pianoteq. It was not comparable to pianoteq of today.

To judge current pianoteq technology I recomend you to try the Bluthner add on, as is the most natural piano tone of all pianoteq modelled grand pianos, even better tone than D4 model. It's so good that Bluthner piano company itself authorized it.

For some reason the historic instruments, and most historic pianos, sounds more natural in tone than models of modern pianos like K1, C3, YC5 and even D4.
I'm not sure but I suspect this is because most historic models be simpler, with no crossed strings, no harp with the modern extructure or the circle (holes) in the harp.   
The clavicord recordings using piaoteq model sounds just pure perfect for me (considering mp3 limitations), if not better than most real clavicord recordings (comparing a mp3 version too).

After pianoteq many people, who was used to play good digital piano or good piano library softwares, started to develop a sense of real piano harmonics, like real pianists develop playing quality real grand pianos.  Even the bests digital pianos and piano libraries can't reproduce rich harmonics like pianoteq.
For some people harmonics and playability are more important, and for other people the tone it's more important.
It's just a matter of time until pianoteq reach a natural tone reproduction, so natural as the best sampled pianos. In the mean time pianoteq offers the most natural playability and harmonics for a digital instrument.

Varpa:  I agree with you that mp3 is killing some earing ability, removing atention to details.
            CD it's better than MP3, but a prime vinyl disc it's better than CD. People could require more quality, like a audio recored in DVD with better frequency, more channel and more bits,  but accept any MP3
            Something similar happen to image.  Digital compression, artefacts, limited dynamic range in LCD TVs, people are getting used to the crap compressions, blured edges and details, boosted hightlighs lacking nuances and the distortion after move head a inch upper or lower.
            The better HD broadcast blurred the hair of a character when he moves very slowly.  I hate it...  I prefer a DVD with prime compression than a HD broadcasting blurring all details everytime someting moves a bit.

            And until today nobody invented a decent Film Player for computer, cause all films have a contrast standart made for TV standart, and TV and computer use different contrast standarts. As result any movie in PC looks darker and fadded, compared to TV, and if you try to increase contrast adjust of monitor the bright details desapear creating a solid white mass.

I thought I might try your "favorite".

However, I find no reference to it anywhere.

Can you point to that fxp file ?

Opportunity to use the fxp linking feature we recently implemented (insert the link to the fxp and the rest is displayed automatically):
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.php?id=1507

Varpa, thanks for suggesting the fxp. This does not solve the bass definition, as you already mentioned, but it is an interesting fxp in its own right.

I am using standard. The price point suits me better, but also I am afraid that having note-by-note editing possibilities may distract me from playing (I had that experience when I picked up tuning my own piano, stopped that as it took too much of my attention).

That, very definitely, can happen.    I experienced that when I first purchased Pianoteq PRO.   

Fortunately, [tongue in cheek] I eventually realized that I could not get the sound I wanted (call me picky) so I began to just accept the presets that were provided and just tweaked them slightly and blended them (softly) with my digital piano sound and that is where I am at with things now.   It allows me to change my sound periodically and that seems to satisfy me.   It is cheaper than going after another digital piano.

This sound business is so wrapped up in a multitude of factors (i.e.  computer, audio devices, amplifiers, speakers, monitors, room acoustics, etc ...) that it is very difficult to get the "perfect" sound so I now just accept the sound I have and try to spend most of my time playing the piano instead of judging the sound quality.

I know I would go nuts trying to tweak the sound if I had the pro. Stage works for me with all the presets, so enough variations for me. Probably sounds better than any real piano I ever had anyway.  I have an old GEM pRP7 mounted in an actual baby grand body that I gutted. Having the piano shell as a visual makes it sound more real to me.

I thought it was time for another amateur to weigh in and express his complete  sympathy with (and gratitude for) the original post that began this thread.  It was a relief to find that maybe it isn't “just me”.

Like what Paul tried to do with the D4, I also tried with the Bluethner  with similarly limited success.  There is still that persistent “nasal” quality in the sound, especially noticeable in the mid-range (see link below). 

I mainly use PT4 in conjunction with teaching software resident on the same laptop; it's more convenient.  For just playing, I still prefer my Roland HP302 sampled piano.  But here is where it gets a little interesting.

I am using the pianoforall piano lessons which include short videos in mov format.  He was demonstrating an Em79 chord which, as he remarked and I agreed, sounded really nice – on his piano.  But on the Bluethner, as well as on my Roland, not so nice.  I noticed he was using a Roland so I asked him what model it was.  It was an HP-236; a good ten years older than mine.  So what's going on – are we progressing backwards?

Then I found this  link  which related a piano player's lament at being unable to find an acceptable modern replacement for his beloved old (but ailing) Yamaha MP-100.  He is a retired engineer with quite a bit of experience in electronics and acoustics and discusses at some length his theory of the “nasal” piano problem.

He sees it as a marketing driven problem.  This would not surprise me as I have witnessed over recent years this same degradation in so many other products, with some of my favorite products completely driven from the market.

And so, to wrap this up, it would appear that the modelled virtual piano may be our only hope for the future.

PT5 anyone?

Allan

Thanks for the post, I have some agreement with the experience of the fellow from a previous era.
Yes, PTQ is good, very good - putting it aside for the moment.
The "rack rat" gear of the 80s and 90s was good, I agree that the manufacturers THEN were trying to emulate "real" (whatever THAT may mean) instrument sounds.  The MKS-20 is still pretty convincing - IMO, etc.
That was introduced when the great unwashed public was listening to walk-man and similar radios, the "richness of tone" took some getting used to.
I agree that a lot of the gear now is aimed at emulating "pop instrument" sounds, which are fine in their own right but aren't top flight grand pianos.
The product problem has also come a long way in two or three decades.
There is a much higher level of integration, which generally means that it is impractical to produce a range of sound generators from a basic design, i.e. it is no longer practical to produce econo, mid and high end tone generators from a single basic design.  When it all fits on one chip each design is another chip.  It used to be that the econo version had a few knobs and switches, the mid range had a couple of cut off filters, the high end version maybe had 7 band eq.

So, what to do ?, where to go ?
I suppose there will continue to be a (small) market for simulations that approach "concert instruments" and every so often a pop group will bring out a smash hit that uses a particular "physical" instrument, resulting in a short term revival.   
{Beetles, Eleanor Rigby,  MANY kids signed up for Cello lessons that year  (-: }

Ahh, before I forget - a tangent.  What are your thoughts/impressions of pianoforall ?
(In both a teaching context and a teach yourself context)
-------------------------------

Don Smith,
Thank you for taking time away from playing to experiment with the variable instrument we call pianoteq.
Of all the FXP files I have tried I can honestly say I have enjoyed yours the most, not just the settings but the combination with the pieces you play on them.  Thanks again - I am a BIG FAN !
Too much choice indeed, when the old community hall upright with a few broken strings was all there was it was plenty good enough.
---------------------------------------

Sometimes switching speakers or headphones makes it all "new" again. Like switching strings or the nut on a guitar to change things a bit. Just saying'.