This is the kind of piano I quite like. Rich, full of character:
https://soundcloud.com/debased-2/notes_to_self/s-FOE1r
Can PT5 do this?
You decide - vote! EDIT: vote is now closed, see the result.
[DELETED - I don't want to introduce any bias into other's opinions - I will put my original reply back when the poll has finished, even if I get mud on my face ]
Ok here was my response:
"If that is NOT Pianoteq, I'll eat my own hat".
Greg.
With the latest versions of PianoTeq (i.e. v4.5, v5) it's getting progressively harder to hear that particular "swooshing/phasing" sound I hear when playing certain chords under certain velocities. For me, that particular "effect" (swooshing/phasing sound) is a dead giveaway that I'm listening to PT versus a sampled piano /real acoustic piano. The first PT versions where really bad in that regard but things have improved greatly since. Still, even with the latest versions I can hear this "effect" most of the time under the right conditions.
Unfortunately the example you provided is not one of those cases. The way the notes are played (softly and slowly) doesn't expose the problem areas that PT has. So in this particular case, I'd be very hesitant to make a call...but if I had to, I would say that it is Pianoteq playing. And yes, I agree with you, your demo sounds very nice, whether it's PT playing or not
Chuck
It's Pianoteq, I know you don't have a real piano at home.
PT5 no doubt about it... PT5 sound very very good but real piano still sound different ....
Depending of how it's played and the key range, it's already difficult to say if it's pianoteq or not.
But I bet it's not pianoteq because the sound it's not similar to the grand piano brands D4, YC5, K2 or the Kremsegg collection.
For people who give value to full natural harmonic, the living aspect of a real piano, not just to play but also to hear the many harmonic effects, the samplers can sometimes be easier to detect than pianoteq.
Even Hi End samplers sounds somewhat static, lifeless in harmonics, in many circunstances, that in a comparison make it easir to spot it's a sampler piano.
Reamambering there are circunstances and circunstances.
U4 for example it's a piano near perfection in tone, and with all harmonics effects. For me it's the solid proof modeling it's cleary the way of the future. No sampler can sound as natural as it does, cause the lack of the true hamonics in samplers denunces more than any micro synthetic hint some fanatic can find in U4.
@Lylo, don't I? And who says it was recorded at home? : ).
@chucky5p, interesting. I thought this would be the acid test, lots of space between notes to hear every nuance.
It's really interesting what everyone is listening for, keep 'em coming guys.
(btw does anyone know how I can fix that Soundcloud error?)
Interesting...
Before the first version of pianoteq arrive, before the beta 1 starts, I sent some ideas to Modartt, like tips of some marketing, to help promote when released...
One idea was based in a dietetic soft drink TV comercial where a hoster invited people to drink two softdrinks of a given manufacturer, one standart and the other diet (no identification of what was what), and say what was the diet softdrink.
But when the beta started and the first version was released it was too easy to notice that the sound wasn't organic, but a synthetization of a piano. I started to imagine if someday in some years the sound would became so good that my idea of "softdrink test comercial" would be a reasonable idea for pianoteq.
This day it's very close now.
For myself that day has come! Thanks Modartt!
For myself that day has come! Thanks Modartt!
Yes That ist right. V5 has a very nice Atak and is super in ff. And it is bright Now, that is Great. But for me the best is the u4. When i Play the Dream of the Delphine from michael cretu with the u4 it is wonderful thank you Modartt
Let me guess, Bluthner v5?
Not easy.
I vote for Pianoteq. But I am not sure. In some notes I think I recognize the Pianoteq attack. It could be the Pianoteq...
Trick question. It's actually ivory
It's so full of reverb (and delay ?), that it's hard to tell.
Perhaps the bechstein ?
The excessive reverb would help to cover the lack of natural harmonics, in case it was a sampler.
It's so full of reverb (and delay ?), that it's hard to tell.
Perhaps the bechstein ?
Well, even if it's not the best recording of a piano I've ever heard, I hear details in the attack (especially the hammers sound) and in the bass notes harmonics that PTQ is still not able to reproduce in my opinion; also real 'air' around..
The reverb is a little artificial and makes the piano seem less real than it is.
Obviously I hope to be wrong (and I really want that preset if so ) but I voted for the real one.
The SC error could be due to the fact that the track has been posted as private thus available only through direct link.
No matter what it is: the decay/sustain sounds strange to me. If it's a real piano I'd say the mics are positioned near those holes where resonance is very prominent.
Pianoteq5. Bluthner
I think it is not real because it's too perfectly tuned, perfectly recorded and equalized to be real. Not sure about Pianoteq because the piece is no big challenge for the instrument. Could be also ivory, v-piano, nord piano II. But as there were only 2 options, I voted for pianoteq.
Just to clarify, it's not a trick, it is one of the two choices.
The tuning is interesting, because I hear at least one badly tuned note I didn't notice during the recording.
I'll post the answer in a couple of days or so.
The SC error could be due to the fact that the track has been posted as private thus available only through direct link.
Thanks, but making it public didn't work. Google suggests Soundcloud's API has changed, so maybe the forum needs to be updated to make embedding work again.
Hello Mr. ReBased,
Of the two choices allowed, I believe the sound is NOT that of a real acoustic piano.
Why not? In the first few seconds of playing your C Major chords, you let up on the damper pedal, and then re-pressed it. The acoustics fell completely away. In addition the C1-G1-C2 (with C3 being defined as Middle C) tended to sustain longer than in a real acoustic piano.
In addition, I heard no evidence of a room's natural ambiance, which would have been the case had you placed a few microphones close to the piano. I also noticed a rather wide stereo field from left-to-right, that followed the keyboard's notes in a manner that two actual microphones would not capture in an acoustic piano.
Cheers,
Joe
@Lylo, don't I? And who says it was recorded at home? : ).
It was only a joke you know...
This is not a real piano for sure, but the attack is different from pianoteq's. Since there is only two choices, and also since I hear a very much increased soundboard impedance, I would think this is pianoteq superposed to something else, either the keyboard's internal sound or an external library. There is also some wobbling in the tuning, hinting to a superposition not quite in tune.
And finally?
Thanks for the votes & comments guys. Final result:
Real: 6 28.57%
PT5: 15 71.43%
Votes: 21It was ...
... PT5 Bluethner (custom patch).
When I first tried the PT5 trial, I really didn't like the sound. The new string model took me a day to get used to (I heard all this metallic stuff I hadn't heard before). I like it now, it's more realistic - but then I still have the problem that PT presets are (for my tastes) a bit 'scientific'/sterile, too accurate, too precise. I don't think it's an engine problem, but more a different style of piano. I prefer imperfect, 'character' sounds, and lots of resonance/ringing.
So I spent a day re-programming an old PT4.5 Bluethner patch, trying to get the most organic, warm, complex and (to my preferences) realistic sound I could. Sort of a bit upright-ish.
I can't give you the FXP, but basically it uses a ton of randomisation + detuning to make the sound more varied, richer, less obviously PT. It adds very subtle PT effects to mix things up more (there's almost no audible Reverb btw, it's all strings). Mic positions matter too (love the new mics).
And finally I tried to trick you by running the rendered file through analogue console and reel-to-reel tape simulations, to make it sound like it could have been real mics (there's even a little hiss in there). That's pretty subtle though (easier to hear on the 96/24 source files, or good headphones).
This is the original file (as posted):
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...tom%29.mp3
And same, but without any randomisations, effects or console/tape sims:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...%5D%29.mp3
On the first day I wasn't even sure I would upgrade my PT Pro! (I never thought that would happen!). Now I've figured out how to get my sound, I'm v. happy I upgraded .
I can't give you the FXP
Just curious, why not?
but basically it uses a ton of randomisation + detuning
Once again just curious, randomization of which parameters? and just curious yet again detuning of which parameters
Just curious, why not?
I will probably use this in a recording and I like to have unique sounds.
Once again just curious, randomization of which parameters? and just curious yet again detuning of which parameters
I randomised most of the parameters, per-note (you need the Pro version for that). It's really about getting an 'uneven' piano. Same with detuning.
If you don't have the Pro version, you can also get some of that using the 'Condition' slider just above the virtual keyboard (which I also used). You can deteriorate the sound with this, and it will detune the keys too.
delt wrote:Just curious, why not?
I will probably use this in a recording and I like to have unique sounds.
ReBased wrote:Once again just curious, randomization of which parameters? and just curious yet again detuning of which parameters
I randomised most of the parameters, per-note (you need the Pro version for that). It's really about getting an 'uneven' piano. Same with detuning.
If you don't have the Pro version, you can also get some of that using the 'Condition' slider just above the virtual keyboard (which I also used). You can deteriorate the sound with this, and it will detune the keys too.
My midi controller has uneven velocities and in desperate need of repair. So I think the uneven thing is overrated.
So - how do I claim my prize?
My midi controller has uneven velocities and in desperate need of repair. So I think the uneven thing is overrated.
.
So - how do I claim my prize?
You get to feel good about yourself . What tipped you off? Did you just recognize the Bluethner timbre?
What tipped you off? Did you just recognize the Bluethner timbre?
Not immediately. I tried playing along with the chords - one of them has a very distinctive ringing harmonic that I heard in the Blüthner model with the same chord.
Thanks for the votes & comments guys. Final result:
Real: 6 28.57% PT5: 15 71.43%
That's misleading. Only 1 person voted real. A few said they think it's not Pianoteq, but rather another software piano.
Hi,
I respect your effort here, but I'm not sure this test is interesting. Well if you asked me if it was pianoteq, I would be inclined to answer "yes" even before listening, because it is obvious to me that one would want to see how many people are fooled by thinking pianoteq is a real piano.
A more interesting "Pepsi challenge" or rather "Turing test" would be to use two recordings, one of pianoteq, one of a real grand (recording not manipulated to sound "synthetic"), and have people spot the fake...
I adore Pianoteq from the day I discovered it, and version 5 is amazing. But I don't think it passes the Pepsi challenge yet.
- Eran.
A more interesting "Pepsi challenge" or rather "Turing test" would be to use two recordings, one of pianoteq, one of a real grand (recording not manipulated to sound "synthetic"), and have people spot the fake...
Yes, that's getting closer, but even that isn't the test I'm interested in. The test I want is to give examples of excellent sounding piano recordings (either from real, or sampled pianos) to Pianoteq experts, and see if they can get Pianoteq to make the same sound, and THEN for me to not be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
I'm not interested in Pianoteq sounding the same as a boring real piano.
Greg.
ReBased wrote:Thanks for the votes & comments guys. Final result:
Real: 6 28.57% PT5: 15 71.43%That's misleading. Only 1 person voted real. A few said they think it's not Pianoteq, but rather another software piano.
No, there was an actual poll at the top of the page, and this was the result (it was removed when the poll was closed). People may have voted without commenting.
I respect your effort here, but I'm not sure this test is interesting. Well if you asked me if it was pianoteq, I would be inclined to answer "yes" even before listening, because it is obvious to me that one would want to see how many people are fooled by thinking pianoteq is a real piano.
Not necessarily. I have been critical of PT's sound over the years even though I love it in all other respects. I've always struggled to get a sound that I find realistic, even with extensive programming. I could have been pointing out that PT can't yet match the 'real' sound I like. When I started programming the sound, that's actually what I felt like.
A more interesting "Pepsi challenge" or rather "Turing test" would be to use two recordings, one of pianoteq, one of a real grand (recording not manipulated to sound "synthetic"), and have people spot the fake...
I adore Pianoteq from the day I discovered it, and version 5 is amazing. But I don't think it passes the Pepsi challenge yet.
Sure, my test was not trying to be definitive, just a fun experiment in how much I could push the new engine to sound more complex than the patches (imo). But it was my patch, what sounds realistic to me, someone else may have a different thing they look for or find real (usually related to the real pianos they know and play).
I'd like to see the kind of test you propose.
Yes, that's getting closer, but even that isn't the test I'm interested in. The test I want is to give examples of excellent sounding piano recordings (either from real, or sampled pianos) to Pianoteq experts, and see if they can get Pianoteq to make the same sound, and THEN for me to not be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
Also a good idea - but to get a close match, the same instrument would have to be implemented in PT, so it would have to be a similar sounding Steinway, Bluethner etc. Even in the Pro version you can't fundamentally change the character of the piano beyond a certain point, there are basic parts of each instrument that are built-in.
(personally I would love to have even deeper access to that stuff in the Pro version, eg. abilty to change hammer sounds, sound board/cabinet character somehow etc).
The perfect test would be if you could find a good recording from the actual piano Modartt used for their model. Of course Modartt should have these recordings ...