There's way too many overtones for that to be even remotely useful.
Therefore, it was thought that it would be better to do this with the help of one slider "state". From "perfectly smooth" to "not very perfectly smooth"
honjr wrote:scherbakov.al wrote:I do not know if that would make sense. But I have the following idea that I would like in the next version of Pianoteq. I would like that the slider "condition" did not change the pitch of the notes, but changed the parameters "width of unison" and "balance of unison" individually in each overtone. For example: I increase the "condition" and in the note becomes the first overtone with the value of the width of the unison 1.2 and the unison balance for example 0.1. The second overtone is width unison 1.13 and the balance unison is 0.07. The third is the width of the unison 1.25 and the unison balance is 0.15..etc. And so differently in each note. I wonder what effect this can bring to the sound and timbre? And it's great, then, to make the "condition" applicable separately to each note in the "Pro" version.
Similar request - pro already allows adjusting the relative volumes of overtones per note. Why not also allow individual tuning of the fundamental and of each overtone of each note?
In the pro version (not sure about other versions), we can already adjust the tuning of each note. Open the drop box from the upper left corner of any Note Edit pane, and choose Detune, the first item in the list. The pitch of each overtone cannot be directly controlled, but changing the length of the strings will change the pitch of all of the overtones.
Thanks Jake - a useful tool. I think being able to remove/reduce/augment inharmonicity (and other nonlinearities peculiar to pianos) on a per-overtone level would be very useful. The same per-overtone level of control on relative overtone volume has been very useful to me.
1. A loop function on the midi player allowing to select a passage and repeat.
2. Ability to run reverb as an effect, prior to the main reverb - thus, the option of chaining more than one reverb.
3. As mentioned above, more sophisticated EQ.
There can be an individual "detuning" and "unison balance" for each overtone. In small limits.
When you detune any overtone, hypothetically, have you still the overtone?
In addition to my 1-3 above:-
4. A compare button similar to what the Applied Acoustic Systems (AAS) instruments such as Strum GS-2 and Ultra-Analogue utilise. It's great; after tinkering editing and losing all conception of what the initial patch sounded like, you click "compare" and it lets you hear the patch again in its unedited form. I know there is the A and B presets and in Pianoteq, which allows comparison, but, I'm quite lazy and don't want the hassle of loading two instances of the same patch.
What about a soundfont converter...
I want one simple thing for a couple of years. I use pianoteq for everyday training and prefer to control time of trainings (day, week, month, year). Using clocks and external timers, you often forget to switch and pause them, when you have some mini-rests. Pianoteq already calculates time, you spent with him (through midi history), so you may calculate by simple additioning this numbers. It would be so nice, if pianoteq can calculate this time automaticaly.
1. The most easy realization is a simple line in midi-hystory section, that says how many time you played this day.
2. "Clever timer". A little switchable timer in user-interface. If you don't need it, it is hidden and doesn't work. If you need it, you switch a button, and timer appears. Timer calculates time when (and only) you play pianoteq +/- 5-6 seconds. In timer settings you may apply to work from manual "on" to "off" or to reseting to zero one time a day (somewhere near 5-6 a.m., or by user's setting).
Additionaly:
a. It would be also nice to have timer working in 2 regimes (like stopwatch (from 0 to xx) and like back timer (from xx to 0)). Or having some alarm when you reach your planned figure.
b. It would be absolutely awesome to have some statistics section, which remembers figures and shows you your results for some periods. And of course it should be off as standard.
I saw on pianoworld, that other people also trying to find some automation solution, so, I guess I am not the one, who would be enjoyed by this little feature.
Interesting, but all that together would take time/money. Maybe they could create a pack of tools to sell .
About a tool to create modeled instruments from áudio samples... I don't think humanity is ready for it. I don't like to imagine someone creating a "fart orchestra".
What new features you would like to see in the future in PTQ? (Anything what you wish to see if it's currently possible or not)
To me its next things:
FX:
- Ability to host VST/AU plugins inside Pianoteq
- Better EQ (more bands and zooming option/bigger display for EQ)
- Low/notch/high cut filter with velocity control (with resonance control)
- Different amp types/models + cabinet modeling.(Not essential if VST/AU hosting comes true)
- Ability to specify space for instruments (room size + wall materials etc)Features:
- Ability to combine/layer instrumets
- Ability to split instruments (with velocity fade option)
- Ability to create instrument models from audio samples (In my dreams:))
- Song creation tool ala Toontrack Ezkeys
- Real time chord detection
A option to enlarge even more the EQ and vel curve window is welcome too. I would go further, asking a option to create "curves" between achor points, making smooth transition lines between the points, instead of sharp "saw" straight lines . PHOTOSHOP's DYNAMIC GAMMA CURVES GRAPHIC it's like that :
https://www.google.com.br/search?q=phot...o1T5fFPOM:
Also two brands of anchor points, one like a small square and other like a small circle. Between two tiny squares a straight line would be formed, and between two tiny circles we get a rounded (arc) line, and between a square and a circle, a intermediary thing.
Impulse reverb to simulate the acoustic of singing in the shower. Well... why not? I supose nobody here have a bathroom large to place a grand piano.
I'd like the ability to add more anchor points to the 'EQU3' Filter Parameters. Also, make them different colours so that you can easily identify them when you swap them around.
feature: The ability to detach and resize the keyboard.
Maybe I could do this already, but don't know how. I'm gradually refining the Grotrian sound but I have a number of wav files of recordings made from my previous versions of the instrument. I didnt save midi versions. A midi of any age - if I had them - could be loaded and re-exported with a different version of an instrument, but I am limited to only the 'previously played' list of audio files. Would be very useful to be able to load wav files and re-export them with my latest version of the Grotrian. (Or indeed any audio files of any instrument to be re-exported with the better version of the instrument.) Especially useful when adding to/completing collections e.g. Chopin mazurkas, nocturnes etc so that there aren't apparent changes to the set up of the instrument from one piece to the other. No, I don't record them in strict order of opus numbers!
sandalholme: its nearly impossible to re-render an audio file with a new sound. You'd first need to convert the audio file back to midi which is possible, but non-trivial and is a task far beyond Pianoteq's purpose. On the other hand it is trivial to import a midi file into Pianoteq and render that. You can easily save your own playing as midi files since Pianoteq records everything you play, and you can save what you have played (just load a midi from "recently played on the keyboard" and save it to a file). Of course you can explicit record a midi file too with the record button. Anyway, make some reference midi recordings and then use the to try out new Pianoteq configurations.
Thanks for the response. Yes, I have found out that creating a midi file from an audio file comes into the too difficult category. However, saving midi files is impractical. I am trying to capture my waning powers before arthritis catches up with me. I am not looking for perfection, even in the notes, but a half decent performance of, say a Mozart, Haydn or Beethoven sonata movement that I can live with if I ever get to old age means more than one take. I use Audacity, so I am limited to re-takes when there is a sufficient rest to erase/substitute in Audacity. Splicing continuous sound in Audacity is a nightmare. So around 1 - 6 takes per movement, including repeats. Very few in comparison with professional recording, but then my results aren't professional! I have no idea how I could edit several midi files to be able to output one clean wav file.
I have recorded up to now using Jazz studio - to hear clearly - and have added ambience via the matrix reverb on a Mac. Become dissatisfied with this and have tried Samplicity IR files which are much smoother. So, I really want to pick up my recent Grotrian recordings using the pre-matrix reverb version and re-render using the Samplicity IRs and carry on recording with this setting. But I can't do this. I have found no way to use the Samplicity IRs in Audacity, which would be a solution.
Re re-rendering. I played/output a Chopin mazurka using my chosen Grotrian fxp - with Jazz studio reverb - then loaded 2 more differently tailored Grotrian fxps and output them to wav. They can be found at
https://app.box.com/s/vzhdsgrxop8xo5gic2fzerodc7ewgfyt
https://app.box.com/s/os30unmtev0r7n1ix1ryfgs4gi58xwda
https://app.box.com/s/d1pfdyeob7pr60it01rjmnd0wp2xznl8
and the fxps
https://app.box.com/s/l9015mshd4kex66gc9wf5mjpgwr9tp1j
https://app.box.com/s/qwkat2wkyc8w4r0jef8uhhdtw5dm0myt
https://app.box.com/s/al0qf78o5nllbrugrbi1w3qtxmptymlb
Changes between fxps include velocity curve, instrument condition, spectrum profile, forte hammer hardness. Clearly it is the same instrument but different as in an acoustic being maybe re-tuned with a little regulation work and I wonder if anyone can detect the wav file which was rendered first. I wouldn't be able to. (Rendering using, say, an ES7 Grotrian Prelude fxp showed definite problems with the sound.) Obviously the wav files are 'raw', nothing has been done, straight from the recently played list and no processing in Audacity.
I would be interested if anyone registers the differences in sound and can describe them, apart from which is the original. (Listening on a pc probably won't do) Obviously my preferred fxp suits my equipmen for playing and then - on separate equipment - listening.
At present I believe the facility to re-render wav files with fxps of this nature, i.e. with not very dramatic differences, would be very useful.
@sandalholme -- It can actually be fairly easy and efficient to edit a MIDI file, splicing several "takes" of a piece and cleaning up (deleting) wrong notes, etc., if one invests some time into learning a MIDI editing program. (I use Qtractor in Linux).
For audio splicing, Ardour or Harrison Mixbus (or Mixbus 32C), both of which are based on the Ardour digital-audio recorder/editor, works well. But again, there is an investment of time to learn to use the programs.
MIDI files are very small in comparison to audio files, and can be much more flexibly edited, so you might consider recording several "takes" of a piece and saving them as MIDI audio file (numbering the different recordings/takes in sequential order) and saving them for future use, if you should ever want to learn to edit MIDI data.
Just an idea.
Thanks Stephen. As I am past my 3 score years and 10 and have survived many learning curves I'm hesitant about another one. I do have Reaper, which apparently supports midi editing, but loading 2 midi files - one a complete movement and the other a couple of minutes about a 3rd of the way into the movement, I couldn't see an obvious way of proceeding and Reaper help/forums were not very enlightening. Maybe cutting out a section of one track and inserting a replacement from another track is beyond a beginner. I will do more googling!
As I am past my 3 score years and 10 and have survived many learning curves I'm hesitant about another one. I do have Reaper, which apparently supports midi editing, but loading 2 midi files - one a complete movement and the other a couple of minutes about a 3rd of the way into the movement, I couldn't see an obvious way of proceeding and Reaper help/forums were not very enlightening.
Being not that far behind you in decades covered so far, I certainly understand learning curves and your reluctance to climb another such mountain/challenge/whatever.
I'm not familiar with Reaper at all. I use Qtractor or Ardour in Linux for MIDI editing. If you like, I can try to edit one of your MIDI recordings to "overdub" a corrected portion onto the original complete MIDI recording. I'm curious as to whether I can do this. A link to send email to me appears below my Avatar to the left of these comments, if you decide that you might like to contact me about this. Either way, best wishes.
Hang on guys . . . some of us are lagging behind here; like light years behind.
Thought I was doin' well sorting out Stage within two years . . I better buy the Standard pack before it gets any more complex . . .
Spectrum analyzer on the spectrum profile tab (overlay).
... I do have Reaper, which apparently supports midi editing, but loading 2 midi files - one a complete movement and the other a couple of minutes about a 3rd of the way into the movement, I couldn't see an obvious way of proceeding and Reaper help/forums were not very enlightening. Maybe cutting out a section of one track and inserting a replacement from another track is beyond a beginner. I will do more googling!
I am learning Reaper now myself, and this all seems quite do-able. What have you tried? How have you failed? Have you posted on the Reaper forums, and if so, can you post a link to these posts?
I would like to see MPE. To be able to play pianoteq with a Linnstrument and have it dynamically change per key parameters with all those controls. Sure, it would not sound like a naturally played piano, but like something physically impossible. Which is interesting, I think.
Side by side could slide and bend, up/down could detune (and multiply?) the strings within a note to create oscillations/vibrato/chorus/unison. Pressing down would make sustain become louder and harsher, as if retriggered but without the hammer sounds; only sustain.
I also like the idea of a looper, pianoteq style. Also something for professionals to gauge progress as they practice, without becoming synthesia. I also like the background noises in kontakt Una Corda, but that is probably not something pianoteq should get into. Lastly: i would like drumteq ;-) but mostly the MPE thing!!
Edit: I would buy pro for MPE.
I am learning Reaper now myself, and this all seems quite do-able. What have you tried? How have you failed? Have you posted on the Reaper forums, and if so, can you post a link to these posts?
Thanks for the response. Since abandoning sampled pianos and using Pianoteq I haven't used Reaper and am not very familiar with it anyway. Loaded the two midi files onto separate tracks but couldn't see an obvious way to select/copy/paste then delete the unwanted section. TBH after recently setting up a music streaming system and ploughing through all the fallout - still ongoing, yesterday the scanner failed - from upgrading the Mac Mini OS, I need a rest from learning curves. I have yet to upgrade the MacBook Pro with which I run PT ........
I dont need to add personal suggestions because here is so many suggestions already and I agree with some of them. But, if we put together a list of all suggestions for new features people want, it will be a long list, thats for sure. Suggestions can be importatnt for Modartt, but the list of features still missing can probably be almost endless….So, maybe Modartt could have us to wote on which suggestions ( for example 10) are most important for us customers, helping them to decide what to focus on. But, probably they choose their own way. Well, just a thought, somehow it came up when reading the thread again.
I dont need to add personal suggestions because here is so many suggestions already and I agree with some of them. But, if we put together a list of all suggestions for new features people want, it will be a long list, thats for sure. Suggestions can be importatnt for Modartt, but the list of features still missing can probably be almost endless….So, maybe Modartt could have us to wote on which suggestions ( for example 10) are most important for us customers, helping them to decide what to focus on. But, probably they choose their own way. Well, just a thought, somehow it came up when reading the thread again.
I agree and I think Modartt will listen to customers when suggestions are achievable (Some of mine are definitely not realistic:)). So maybe Modartt could open some kind of wishlist thread where customers could vote thumb up/down so that developers could see what customer really want.
The attack is maybe too strong compared to the sustaining note, making it sound hollow. Also, there's something weird about the balance of the frequencies: No matter how much I try to EQ my recording, I can't get it to sound like a balanced real or sampled piano recording.
Someone said that Pianoteq is not a DAW, that's true but currently it's very difficult to use any other audio program together with pianoteq because of ASIO limitations. Can't get ASIO multi-client to work (it's highly experimental anyway). So I'd really need more features.
One thing would be a real equalizer: I have a certain equalizer always on with my headphones but on Pianoteq it doesn't work, and with Pianoteq's EQ features it's very difficult to get it anywhere close to my EQ setting. The unrestricted equalizer built in pianoteq works in some weird way that might be beneficial in some things (though I haven't learned to use it), and the 3 band equalizers in the effects are very limited for any serious EQing.
Currently I have no way of playing music in the background while I'm playing the piano, which is an extremely important feature for making piano covers of existing music. Midi playback is possible but normal audio file is not. Also more features for playback like restarting from a specific part, fastforward and rewind features would make the usability even better, you could for example make it possible to map specific functions to certain keys the particular piece you are playing doesn't use. Audio playback speed manipulation would be useful for practicing over a backing track slower. There could be a true speed change or a pitch preserving speed change options too.
I can always dream but yeah, Pianoteq needs more versatility.
It seems several of your issues are not with Pianoteq per se, but with the limitations of ASIO. For example, in linux, using Jack audio server it is no problem to have another program play an audio file you could play along with, or to add an EQ after pianoteq. Even on Windows I would think you could host Pianoteq plugin in a DAW or VST host and then add EQ plugin and also add an audio track of some music to play along with. I really think adding an audio file playing capability to Pianoteq is adding bloat and would a distraction of the main purpose of Pianoteq. Maybe the Pianoteq EQ could be improved, I don't have much opinion on that since I don't really use it much, though there are 2 ways to do EQ in Pianoteq, so its hard to understand how these cannot handle your needs.
Concerning fast forward/rewind maybe this could be useful, but there are already some ways to do this. For one you can use the mouse to move the playhead around a midi file to whatever location you want. In addition the mouse wheel can be used to move the playhead around if you hover over the midi file display in pianoteq, providing a form of fast forward/rewind. There is already the capability of controlling play back speed in the menu next to the midi file display.
I have no problems in using multiple ASIO applications at once here. Pianoteq standalone with, say, Reaktor standalone... no problem at all!
Depends on the audio interface rather than ASIO itself, and how the drivers were written.
It would be nice on the Rhodes Mark I to be able to choose between the different hammer tips (felt, wood, neoprene) that were used as the keyboard evolved.
True, details matter.
feature: The ability to detach and resize the keyboard.
I want to suggest, Pianoteq include maybe a resize any window feature, along with your suggestion. Much like a word processor window, a Pianoteq one might incorporate inconspicuous window anchors —to let you resize it.
- Better EQ (more bands and zooming option/bigger display for EQ)
I'd like the ability to add more anchor points to the 'EQU3' Filter Parameters. Also, make them different colours so that you can easily identify them when you swap them around. :)
3. As mentioned above, more sophisticated EQ.
A option to enlarge even more the EQ and vel curve window is welcome too. I would go further, asking a option to create "curves" between achor points, making smooth transition lines between the points, instead of sharp "saw" straight lines . PHOTOSHOP's DYNAMIC GAMMA CURVES GRAPHIC it's like that :
https://www.google.com.br/search?q=phot...o1T5fFPOM:
Also two brands of anchor points, one like a small square and other like a small circle. Between two tiny squares a straight line would be formed, and between two tiny circles we get a rounded (arc) line, and between a square and a circle, a intermediary thing.
About Pianoteq Effects editor, the window upon which you adjust Equ3, reverb, and other effects and processes, if you won’t settle for the three (3) adjustable equalization (EQ) points Equ3 allows in a single slot and want instead of the Equ3, options a possible Equ4… 9 might give, you have always three (3) fx slots for you to fill with enough Equ3 points to amount to a grand total of nine (9 EQ points). Incidentally, those nine are in addition to the virtually infinite number of points you may add onto the Equalizer pane of your selected model piano.
And, to the degree or ease with which you finely edit a connection to the Equ3 points, Bézier curves, paths or handles —found in computer graphics— appear pointless (pun intended), as you depress the shift key on your alphanumeric keyboard and get any curvey shape necessary in the Equ3!
I would love something like Native Instruments "Una corda", and I don't mean like the "una corda" pedal that we already have.
Explained here: https://youtu.be/gfHK7_lSY-0
Each hammer strike one string. I think it could be interesting to have as a "mode" or a "switch" you could turn on and off on the different pianos we already have. It could be expanded to any odd number of strings per key, with a customizable unison width.
And although you specifically requested "not instruments", I think that Klavin's "Una corda" would be a wonderful addition to the collection of expansions too.
I would love to see a "repeat last note" keyswitch for all of the mallet instruments in Pianoteq. I don't care for the "note bounce" feature for controlled rolls on Marimba, Xylophone, Steel Pans or Vibes. Playing rolls with two keys would be awesome.
-Perry-
Andreas71 wrote:What new features you would like to see in the future in PTQ? (Anything what you wish to see if it's currently possible or not)
- Ability to create instrument models from audio samples (In my dreams:))
This particular one gets first price... but the probability is high that for the many years (and possible for all eternity) to come it will remain in your dream.
About a tool to create modeled instruments from áudio samples... I don't think humanity is ready for it. I don't like to imagine someone creating a "fart orchestra".
Spectrum analyzer on the spectrum profile tab (overlay).
Maybe the notion someday Pianoteq software will match piano audio automatically by itself without human interaction is neither far off nor far fetched. Presently, a couple of my own plugins makes use of spectral data taken out of audio from an instrument, only to apply it to another instrument’s audio. One saxophone recording may have the timbre of another recorded sax! Software today is capable enough to match spectral information in a piano recording also, just to apply that to the recording of a whole other piano. It realistically matches timbre and transfers it amongst varying instruments. Thus any recorded instrument is audibly indistinguishable from another.
Should Pianoteq ever offer, spectral matching, it could just add a spectrum analyzer e.g. spectrum matcher to the “NOTE EDIT” pane. Which becomes visible whenever you double click on the wording “Spectrum profile” located within the software voicing pane.
I'd love for the resonance to be able to respond to external influences. For example, if a vocalist sings with a piano, the voice affects the resonance of the piano and supports the singing. This would be true with any sounds, including non-pitched instruments.
I'd love for the resonance to be able to respond to external influences. For example, if a vocalist sings with a piano, the voice affects the resonance of the piano and supports the singing. This would be true with any sounds, including non-pitched instruments.
YES!!!
Entirely agree!
This would be another huge step forward - or more precisely - JUMP over sampled pianos!
Please, MODARTT: Make this dream come true!
I'd love for the resonance to be able to respond to external influences. For example, if a vocalist sings with a piano, the voice affects the resonance of the piano and supports the singing. This would be true with any sounds, including non-pitched instruments.
And how will Pianoteq detect the vocalist?
Audio input, plus some spectral analysis.
And how will Pianoteq detect the vocalist?
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?id=4996
Thanks for the link, _DJ_.
I am imagining a sidechain feature, to be operable when Pianoteq is being used as a plugin in a DAW. Every track in a mix might have a send to an auxiliary channel strip, the output of which would be a bus. That bus would not be routed anywhere within the DAW, but could be tapped as a sidechain within Pianoteq. The volume control of that bus would control the overall level going to the sidechain, while the sends on each track would determine the apparent proximity of each instrument or voice to the piano. The individual sends would also ensure that you had the ability to keep things from getting muddy.
And yes, as stamkorg wrote, the resonance would be determined by spectral analysis.
Here is a link to a freebie which simulates ways one instrument affects the resonance of another instrument, when it is nearby: https://www.wavesfactory.com/product/snarebuzz/
Please, have a look:
https://youtu.be/xXGt-_Rhl0Q
And, see it in action:
https://youtu.be/vh1vh2arESs
I thought snarebuzz was something audio engineers worked hard to avoid ?
I get the idea that it's relevant to the discussion of a possible improvement to pianoteq, but just to point out the other factor.
Personally I still think an optional movable wall (like in the upright) would be useful for the non-upright models.
While a jazz drummer having more than a fifty (50) year span in musicianship, I often play in some really dank locations and behind a rickety set of drums, only to improvise around snare buzz that emanates through sound waves when they project from non-percussive instruments or an occasional piano part. But as soon as a bassist starts to solo, a sometime ardent listener may observe my physically switching off the snares. Indeed software that allows one to replicate a live performance and nuances in it is a benefit to me artistically --inside my small home studio.
From zero (0) private piano lessons, surprisingly, I find my playing and singing alone whilst seated at the Yamaha P-95 in the meager studio may soon seem as though I were seated at really some $60,000 piano grand instead and having it resonate to my sometimes joyful, otherwise bluesy or jazzy, singing voice (that is) if software developers view this thread and take input from it seriously.
To me, a wall other than the one needed by the Pianoteq upright is an end user’s responsibility. It is necessary in DAW recordings er recorded piano generally. Outside impulse response software, two (2) software packages furnish walls; one of them includes movable walls. Both of them I have. They are:
1.) RaySpace from QuikQuak http://www.quikquak.com/prod_rayspace.html
2.) VirtualSoundStage 2.0 from Parallax-Audio http://www.parallax-audio.com
These are the features I would really like to see:
When the mic is positioned extremely close to the keys the sound of the actual key (the ivory/wood) hitting the case of the piano is audible and adjustable. I may need to purchase some sort of kontakt library of wood sounds to create the realism of close micing because the physicality of the instrument hasn't been thoroughly considered by the pianoteq team. If I position a mic right above the keys and silently depress a key I should hear the body of the key hitting the case, not silence! If I do that with the sustain pedal down I should hear the body of the key hit the case of the piano, produce no actual note, but the thud produces sympathetic vibrations throughout the instrument. This is pretty basic stuff, it's all there in the real deal to observe then replicate.
I would also like more inconsistency available in the different ways that occur on actual pianos and more consideration and inclusion of subtle artifacts that real pianos create. Playing fast repeated notes on real pianos often generate fascinating and beautiful happenstances, for instance. Trills as well - I don't know if due consideration is being given to the effects the proximity of notes has on the generation of "imperfect" artifacts. If I wack-out and trill intensely and inconsistently there are two sets of strings inside the piano that are in close proximity to one another, this makes them more interactive with one another and creates the possibility for richness in timbre. It's not simply a matter of sympathetic resonance anymore, it's more like sympathetic influence. Is this being considered?
I don't think pianoteq will ever sound "rich and real" unless it offers us the ability to add subtle chaos to a certain extent and the team sees the instrument in the real world a bit more. It's not just that real life is more complex, it's that it's inconsistent.
I have been using the knock.wav file (which I ran across in another Pianoteq forum post) to set the convolution reverb for "case reverb", the sounds that echo from inside my piano (somewhat similar to what the last few posts have mentioned). It would be nice to have two reverbs built into the Pianoteq engine: one for case reverb, and one for room reverb.
( here's where I learned about Knock.wav: http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?id=5075 )
Have all adjustments to Pianoteq Spectrum profile, Strike point, Sympathetic resonances, Duplex scale, Damper position, Damping duration, and Last damper, suddenly become effectively obsolete!
Have all adjustments to Pianoteq Spectrum profile, Strike point, Sympathetic resonances, Duplex scale, Damper position, Damping duration, and Last damper, suddenly become effectively obsolete!
I hope this is a joke.
We have many adjustments already for Ptq. I think it is much about how we use them, can we use them and what we hear or do not hear. Interesting, when I am tweaking the sound (Bluethner) for some days, and then go back to the original sound, after all, the original sometimes please me more. So to me, Ptq sounds very rich and real already. What I need, i think, is a better audiointerface (Focusrite Scarlett?) and better speakers (Yamaha HS 7?). New features is of course welcome. Modartt is truly the team that really knows how to model a real piano. After 4 years now, with the current unique exellent features, I still find it endlessly inspiring.
Anything along the lines of allowing for extended playing techniques and modelling instrument preparation could be interesting.
This could relate to the MPE point someone raised, as well as the ability to take audio in and produce sympathetic resonances etc.
Another minor thing, that I'm not totally sure would be right to implement, but could probably be done very easily: having the MIDI stuff from standalone mode also work in the plugin versions. I can see why generally in the context of a DAW one wouldn't expect (or want) the basic MIDI facilities that PT standalone has to be the responsibility of a plugin, but I find myself missing the automatic logging feature now that I'm in the habit of having it running as a plugin rather than standalone. Maybe someone can recommend a Max4Live device or something that performs a similar function.
Also, iOS
...but I can understand the economics of it would be hard to work out sensibly. I'm not convinced by any other arguments against.
How about the ability to "save" a "correction" curve for the keyboard in addition to the velocity curves for each preset?
Folks who have well-behaved keyboards can use the straight diagonal curve, but others of us need to make curves to correct our keyboards. When a correction curve is "locked" as a parameter, then any stylist curves created for the preset won't have any influence as they won't be "seen".
Lots of instruments have interesting presets that are velocity-dependent. It's simply too much trouble to manually add correction curves to effect curves for all of the interesting presets.
I would like :
- A full screen mode in the window option, (in fullscreen, there are two big black areas at the letf and right, this empty space could be used)
- A shortcut to close and exit Pianoteq and also shut down the computer.
- Fix the loudly 'tac' of the metronome that appears arround each 5 minutes. This loudly 'tac' is disturbing and scare me.
- A shortcut to increase the metronome one by one. Actually the shortcut is two by two, more fast to change the speed but it need to use the mouse to increse one by one.
- A restore default/factory setting in the options.
I am very satisfied with Pianoteq 5 and I am not hurry to have the 6.
I would like :
- Fix the loudly 'tac' of the metronome that appears arround each 5 minutes. This loudly 'tac' is disturbing and scare me.
I've been listening to the metronome for 15 minutes and can't reproduce that issue, can you let us know at https://www.pianoteq.com/support_form?direct what is your configuration & pianoteq version , and how much time between the noises ? is it random or is it precisely every 5 minutes ?
Edit: found the bug.
I would like the user interface to be easier to use with a touchscreen.
In my 11" display, the buttons are too small for the finger touch. Also, right-click functions (e. g. assigning a midi channel to a pedal) can't be performed.
I believe I suggested this some time ago but have not seen it implemented yet ....
I seems redundant that we need to set a touch/velocity curve for every different "piano" we utilize in Pianoteq.
Usually a velocity curve is designed to accommodate your particular digital keyboard you are using and should not change because you are utilizing a different type of sounding "piano" from Pianoteq.
I would be nice to, at least, allow us to have a "default" velocity curve and that would be the one used unless we specifically assigned a different one for a particular piano type in Pianoteq.