4 Pianos compared

Great idea to do these blind, standardized tests, Rohade.  Thanks for taking the time to do that.

But why "Upright" for the Pianoteq model (which to my ears sounds clearly like the fourth contestant in the samples)?  That doesn't seem to be directly comparable to the other grands. I would *really* be interested in hearing this done with the "Dynamic Jazz 3-mic" D4 preset from the FXP Forum, which has become my favorite grand among the many available Pianoteq options.

Keep up the great testing, though, to help our ears to "see" beyond our name brand preconceptions.

Hi, thanks for the replies, Pianoteq was Upright Midnight, I used that one because is the most advanced modelling, was tempted to use D4 but D4 was the first released on version 4.

But I can do another one later what that fxp, I havent tried it but I'm getting it right now.

haven't followed pianoteq since just after V4 was released, just checking to see if anything is new. not a hater, just stopped playing piano. I'm not a fanboy either and this is what I thought

#2 best. #1,#3,#4 last

I listened before reading the replies, incase there were spoilers, and I see now some people saying #4 is pianoteq, so it might seem I am a hater! but really I only looked after, I've never even tried the upright preset before, I don't think it helped that #4 (whatever one it is) seemed to have a higher volume or maybe a stronger room/stereo effect so it stood out.

looking forward to checking the answers next week

It was a tought choice, as the upright model is more advanced than the D4, I went with the upright because this is not a Steinway tone test.

It's more about how the tone moves, overtones, resonances with and without pedal, who does a good staccato, clarity, accuracy with the real acoustics of a piano, etc. If anything I'd say that the beauty of the tone should be avoided as a deciding factor. At least with the goal of this comparation. That's why I also went with the Bechstein on EWQL, I wasnt trying to compare them to see which was one the most beautiful sound. But thats a valid point as well.

I dont have the Ivory upright, but even so, is that is not a Steinway tone comparison, or Upright tone comparison, is more about the characteristics of each one and I tried to use the best of the best, actually Vintage D could have been there. Upright is not better than a grand but Pianoteq emulation of an upright is in this moment better than the D4.

Is the U4 really more advanced than D4 in terms of modelling? I think they are the same generation, aren't they?

Anyway, Pianoteqs weaknesses are clear. The sound lacks spatiality. Also it seems the highs are cut somehow, Pianoteq always sounds dullest. I hope the devs can address and improve this. In my imagination the Pianoteq code has a limited number of overtones modeled. Say N=10000. Now they just need to put N=100000. Pianoteq will require a bit more CPU then but sound totally awesome ;-)

Then we are there. P5 will be on par with a real piano. :-)

since 4.5, pianoteq is very very good. i love it. however, i do agree with the concept that the limitation to further authenticity lies in how many overtones can be modelled, and still make it run on an average laptop. which it does superbly. i think it would be a good idea to be able run more computationally complex algorithms depending on what cpu you have. just like u-he do with their diva synthesizer. also, been able to render in your daw the most complex algorithm irrespective of cpu limitations. which is also what diva does.

I only have Pianoteq (and some soundfont pianos) ....pianoteq has so many tons of parameters that can be tweaked, it's impossible to put up just a few piano sounds and say "Ok, this is what pianoteq sounds like".

Just my $0.02

And U4 have a few more demand for CPU, but not very much.
A clear evolution for quality of modeling technology.

Evil Dragon, since you are very well insight the informatic world, may I ask you if you have some graphic, some statistic, about notebook average power increase (for average users) in the last 5 years?

I have the feeling that pianoteq requirements for CPU changed less than the notebooks evolution in the last years.

That is quite likely a correct assessment.

Dayummm....!! Are they processing at the molecular or sub-atomic level, which one is it??

My opinion as well!!

As far as I know Modartt technology work by searching redundant behavior in the equations of the piano producing sound, and resuming the equation.  The difficult thing it's to find what characteristics are more importante to be left with more fidelity resulting in what our ears perceive as a natural sound.
So if they desire to get a earlier piano model add-on and make it more natural and using more CPU to to a finner result, they would need to rework the entire model from sketchy.

Think in bricks that forms a home. If you have a brick, a model of it, you do not need to make every brick every time, but repeat it.  You arrange the best combnation of bricks to try to get appearance of a home.

We could say that Modartt managed to put 5 elephants in a Volkswagen (a good piano sound with affordable CPU needs).

Btw the Pianos were True Keys, Ivory, EWQL and Pianoteq.

They weren't normalized on volume so I guess Pianoteq was easy to spot but I also think the others had chracteristics big enough to identify them.

The pedal down on Ivory was unique, given an openness that wasn't on other samples, when you use the sustain pedal there is some kind of echo and different resonance when you play. Playing bass arpeggios on Ivory was really cool and had a very nice blended sound.

True keys had staccato, only Pianoteq and True keys felt right on it. Contraty to many's belief, the sympathetic resonances on True Keys and Ivory were very clear and audible, which is amazing considering the first one is sampled and the second one is modelled. Between True Keys and Ivory, True Keys is more in your face so feels better when you are playing, some recording sound more beautiful on Ivory, excepto with some resonance on True Keys that sounds really good and above Ivory.

EWQL lacks sympathetic resonance

Also, everyone but EWQL seem to have variable tone when repeating a note.

And about the sound, I think there are two different edges here, one, to sound like a beautiful almost perfectly mic'd recorded clean Piano, and the other to sound like a live acoustic Piano.

I'd put Pianoteq between, also is the less forgiving and you have to be more careful as in a real grand to sound good, Ivory seems the easiest to just play and get a fast beauty sound. EWQL is also between, even when lacking many acoustic features. True Keys may sound the best on particular songs.

Pianoteq sound also seems to move a lot more than the others, which is really cool. Both Pianoteq on defaut options and EWQL seem to decay in more time than the others.

Just joined the forum to say thanks for this great post.

I've been following Pianoteq since it came out, and am impressed by its improvements. I am however in the camp that instantly hears the synthetic quality of the instrument and finds it annoying. I add my name to the list of people who hope one day that it will overcome these problems so that its playability is matched by quality of tone. Please don't call me a "hater"... I am a piano player (28 years experience and counting) and studio engineer who has a different opinion from some people here. Your mileage may vary!

Anyhow, I really appreciate this test. I preferred the True Keys overall and am now considering buying it.

Fair enough, and you are of course entitled to those opinions.  I'm curious how extensively you've tried various FXPs and altering parameters.

I actually had (and still have) similar reactions to yours with regard to *most* of the Pianoteq instrument models.  (My main frustration with the particular comparison in this thread was that -- by choosing the Upright -- it compares apples to oranges.  Try as I might, I still haven't warmed to the U4, which sounds/feels extremely synthetic to me.)

But there are a few FXPs that sound/feel dramatically better than most of the others and -- when combined with the range of dynamism in a modeled (as opposed to sampled) sound source -- have made me a very happy and devoted Pianoteq user.  I'd be interested in whether you feel the same way (or at least as strongly) toward, for example, the Dynamic Jazz 3-mic FXP (and please try playing it rather than judging it based on the poor audio demos!).

I'm now wishing I had had the time to make the video I was imagining for the Video Contest -- demonstrating the dramatic effect that some parameter changes can have on the authenticity of the sound...