Piano specialization or variety of the instruments?

I voted for the 2-nd answer.

I was not asking about "people", it was about you personally.

Yeah, it's called "pianoteq" and not "every-instrument-teq". Though other keyboard instruments like harpsichord certainly have their place.

Agreed about the bosendorfer, i'd like to see that as well.

I'd also like to see a church organ in Pianoteq (must be pretty simple to model) because the only good ones for linux are standalone, and not available as plugins (vst, dssi) ...check out the open-source Aeolus for a very good implementation of an organ modeling synth.

But the focus and priority should certainly be the piano models.

I voted 2nd variant.

Pianoteq is the only physical modelled piano, that sounds realistic and available as software/plugin (in contrast of V-piano, Physis piano, that is built in hardware). But latest sampled pianos sounds very good also (and maybe better). So, I think Modartt should focus on acoustic instruments. Current version is good, but slightly synthetic sound, especially chords -- they are too flat, maybe too ideal -- not as real acoustic piano should sound. YC5 is worst model in my personal opinion, too synthetic.

For electronic pianos and other additional Pianoteq instruments there are more good alternatives, I think. It's just waste of human-hours to develop this instruments instead of improving acoustic. Pianoteq acoustic pianos may be the category killer if Modartt will improve it.

It's just my IMHO. Don't take it too close to heart.

For me the main focus should continue to be the Piano. I love this instrument and never ceased to be surprised by the continuous development of Modartt's models (I've been following Modartt since V2...).

Personally, I would love to get my hands on other pianos, e.g. Imperial Bösendorfer or a Shigeru Kawai.

That said, I don't mind that Modartt also pursuits other projects if they want to (and they nailed pretty good all other available instruments). 

Cheers

I want to know where I am shopping for what.
I am here for piano simulations, I go elsewhere for other instrument simulations.
Pianoteq is definitely losing its focus and with that it will lose its reputation - with that goes mind-share and market share, etc.

I am not at all happy with the trend toward other instruments - perhaps a name change to plucked&struck-stringsTEQ will be needed one day, or plucked_and_struck_noise_generation_teq ?  What next ? bowed ?

I dislike the so called "Pharmacies" in the USA that are some weird combination of general store/grocery store/junk food outlet/drug store/gas station.
They appear to be very profitable, apparently due to the high markup on their cheaply made products.
Diversity is one thing, lost focus quite another.

Ahh well, that is my rant of the day, over and out.

Depends which Casio. Newer PX Privias have triple sensors and high-resolution MIDI velocity, so that's not too shabby at all

By "newer" I meant PX5S and the like.

Bösendorfer is WAY overdue at this point. Screw Steinway!!!

96 keys are not a problem for Pianoteq, remember that D4 has the range extended beyond 88 keys, and it all runs just fine.

CPUs have evolved just fine and perfectly - we have more cores computing more FLOPS in smaller size and much less heat generated. I'd say that's a good evolution.

Methinks the extra strings get up and wag. at least while the damper pedal is down.
How much of that is essential to the Bosendorfer sound.... I can only speculate, but if the strings are there they deserve to be heard, however subtly.
I don't think pianoteq could just leave those strings out, and it probably wouldn't take much compute power to include them anyway.

There are ways other than shifting octaves to get down there, e.g. another keyboard, maybe a mini, even a midi organ pedal board for those who also want to play 3 lines "organically"  yes, I shouldn't do that.

...wait, WHAT?! Ok, just did some research, and OMG, my PX-150 is a Hi-Res MIDI controller!... This new Casios and a VAX keyboard are the only on the market for right now. Old VAX keyboard are out of production and the new ones are still in development stage, and they are not a piano-hammer type emulators. So this new generation of Casios are the only hi-res DP's on the market. Btw you don't need to switch the hi-res mode on or off, it is always present, you may see the Controller 88 messages in the Pianoteq MIDI velocity monitor (in the Options window) - that is it. Ok, lucky me this time, buying the PX-150 was a gamble and some parts. I'm extremely curious to check the other DP's with Pianoteq in familiar conditions. After a half of a year of using it now I know it sends hi-res MIDI. But immediately when I connected it to Pianoteq I felt that it is something extreme and unusual happens about my perception of playing. BTW I'd like to know how can I switch the hi-res off to check if I can feel the difference.

Added: I'm able to filter the hi-res messages, so I can test it a bit later, I'll honestly tell the results then. I suspect that I'll not be able to tell the difference, but we'll see. So maybe I was too excited about it, ok, will find it out soon

Second added: did some tests, hard to say actually, seems that I feel something, but only a blind test and long takes can say.

p.s.: what a clever implementation of sending a 14 bit data by 7 bit messages by using two of them!

Definitely similar to my point of view. Though I'll never tell anyone what they should or should not do. I can only speak for myself and what I would like and want.

Does the PX5S have different a sensor system from the PX-150?

Yeah, I've thought about how tedious it must be to keep trying to improve the alleged realism.

In a different thread (the one alluding to Harpo Marx), I presented my own transcription of Marx's 'Take Me Out To The Ball Game', and some people were interested in how I executed the glissandi (other than in the key of C Major) while playing on a keyboard.

The answer is that I used the "diatonic" mode (by clicking on the little letter D, just to the left of the main Pianoteq keyboard),  and simply played the "E-Flat Major" double glissandi in the "key of C Major", but while engaging three virtual harp pedals: "mi-Pedal" (E natural notes lowered to E-Flat), "la-Pedal" (A natural notes lowered to A-Flat), and the "ti-Pedal" (B notes lowered to B-Flat). 

Cheers,

Joe

I chose the second option for several reasons:

The state of the 'main' models in v5 is still very far away from the 'wine-tasting threshold' where only the most discerning critics could reliably pick out Pianoteq out of a set of sample libraries in an ABX test, given one of its models is tweaked to mimic very closely another sample library (say Pianoteq v7).

As for piano variety - at first I would have been thrilled to see Modartt doing a modern piano* that's not a Steinway, which is the brand they seem to be partial towards. However, I've come to realize that this approaches an exercise in futility. Steinway have come to define every facet of the piano as we know it, and virtually every major brand today borrows heavily from them, at best, or outright copies them, as with Borgato and at one point, Yamaha. Sure, each brand might have their unique 'voices', but even then, they ultimately trace back to the Steinway philosophy, one which has grown very stale especially in the 21st century. For one, I would love if Modartt worked with Klavins††, Adrian Mann†, Stuart, or Boganyi to bring a truly modern take on the piano to the table. Maybe Boganyi could custom-design a new instrument in cooperation with Modartt?

*For the sake of argument, the lengths are defined to be 2m - 2.7m and constructed after 1880.

†Or at least, something radically different!

††When he decides to build another piano, if he doesn't die first!

I voted for #2. Although I don't fear the team losing focus since the launch of the harp.

Generally I'm no friend of imitating non-key instruments on a keyboard but I see reasons to do this: It's due to pragmatism in studio work flows and provides new possibilities for sound design. Examples: You need just one harp glissando for a movie theme or a short steel drum pattern for Caribbean flair. In these cases it's often not worth the effort to find someone playing the real instrument.

But in my opinion solo recordings and performances on such emulations are always strange.

Well, I didn't intend my examples to be interpreted that narrow .

Who knows, maybe all instruments benefit from experiences made in those side projects like especially the acoustic pianos did from the soundboard model improvements of v4 and v5.

Just some general observations as I read through this thread:

I'm having great luck with the Roland RD800 matching up to PT.  My Yamaha CP4 lacks the soft controllable play at velocities under 55.  However, either of these is a very expensive solution and one I didn't plan on as I bought them both to see if it might be possible to have something 'in the box' to play on stage and in the studio.  In the end, they are both nice boxes but the pianos will never be what PT edits can be and the audience response has confirmed that.

High res midi is puzzling since most instruments use far less than the 127 available so why add more?  And I defy anyone to consistently identify an instrument playing at 80 vs 81 unless there's a velocity switch at that point.  Right now, no controller is presently measuring acceleration... they just measure velocity between two points or with an impact sensor.  Thus, there is not enough information read from the keystroke to do much of anything other than what manufacturers are already doing.  But it's the acceleration measurement on the disc clavier that allows it to reproduce exactly what you play.  Piano strips/sensors in acoustic pianos are notoriously poor interpreters of what you're playing but it's still better than having no midi data at all coming from an acoustic instrument. 

And as far as variety of pianos is concerned... you will obtain a much greater variation in pianos using different mics on the same piano than using the same mics on different pianos assuming the length of the piano is roughly the same and the recording location is the same.  Having better mic emulations, and fully adjustable rooms with the option to eliminate the nagging mode problems that PT has been programmed with... would probably give you an acceptable level of the variety you're looking for.

I haven't edited any parameters on the CP4, because we had to use it right away.  With the Roland, I had some time to explore the editing parameters and work with it and it's nicely set up but no matter what you do to the piano, it's use for me would be mostly for Roc and pop music and the same for the Yamaha and of the two I would prefer the Yamaha for that purpose. 

So these companies put together good products that will work as intended for most of today's music.  But if you're style of playing includes exposed solo passages of classical music that has to be played beautifully, the Yamaha isn't for you because you can't get convincing soft play with the stock settings.  The Roland sounds good played softly and medium play is okay, but when you bang it, it sounds like a beat up conservatory grand because the hard attack is too exaggerated and the decays sound like an overstressed soundboard that lost its crown.  If you try to play soft rolling arpeggios to paint a nice wall of sound the Roland sounds clunky compared to PT where even with limited voices... the piano sounds natural and you can make it swell and flow like a real concert grand.  And with PT, you can take the Steinway and turn it into a Baldwin by extending the decay.  In addition, the CP4 and the RD800 have very sterile decays that sound like single cycle loops which detracts from classical expression but doesn't affect pop music very much.

So the CP4 velocity performance is in line with Yamaha products in general (Motif Classic 8, Motif ES, Motif XS).  They WILL reach down below 55 but not with very predictable control.  And they program their sounds on that curve which for the most part, you might never notice a problem until you try to control something else with it and even then, it's not that it's bad... it's just that you don't know what you're missing.  The Roland hammer action is able to reach down WITH control to areas the Yamahas can't touch.  It seems Roland designed the hammer action to have its emphasis on the smooth articulation from very low velocities through to about midi velocity 115 (guessing).  Above 115, the Roland may be problematic for some sounds but not for piano.  When I hooked up the Roland to a Yamaha and pulled up a guitar patch that has a slide in it that you can easily get if you're playing the Yamaha's keyboard (whack the note and it slides)... it's nearly impossible to slide that guitar using the RD800.  So, it may be apples and oranges... one action does one thing better and the other does it's thing better.  Either way, my point was on these 'hi density midi' keyboards or controllers was... that having more midi resolution seems fruitless since manufacturers don't even use all 127 midi velocities available for their dynamic articulations of instruments.

I have found PT to be superior to any of the stage pianos, and nearly all of the monster memory VST pianos which all suffer from a horde of problems that seriously degrade performance which is the direct result of the lack of any editing (there's too much memory for that).  Whereas, with PT, you can edit just about anything.  But that's not easy work and the unedited versions presented by PT lack the polish needed to be able to crank up the volume on stage and have a beautiful result.  Without editing they still sound nice but not at high volume where all the demons come running out.  PT is aware of this, otherwise they wouldn't have included the option to edit most of the important things that need editing.  Their hard work was getting a product to market that is cutting edge modeling and I'm sure... being exhausted and overwhelmed by that enterprise, they were either too tired or didn't have the resources to hire a designer to come in and perfect the patches (model corrections).