So why everyone and every review about Cakewalk UM-1G give 5 star and a lot of elogies ?
Is all MIDI-USB convert cables slowe than the older one, the MIDI-joystick cables to connect in the game port of soundcards some years ago ?
EvilDragon wrote:That does not alleviate latency and jitter completely. USB has its rules, they cannot cheat against them.
Philippe knows everything about real pianos.
The digital piano have some "mechanical lattency" too, since the hammer action key only start pressing the sensor (two sensor to define the note velocity) after the key reach some depth, and there is a delay between for it hit each sensor, and this delay (from sensor 1 to sensor 2) creates a number that gives the key velocity.
In real pianos it's the time for the key to move the mechanism, that will impulse the hammer to hit the strings. But I personally do not consider it as a real latency, despite it technically be correct, cause I only consider as delay, a feeling of delay, after the key reach the botton and give that "knock".
The "knock" feeling we get in the point of the finger, when the key reach the bottom, is the start to me, my brain do not intent the hear anything in the time between start pressing a key and the "knock" sensation. I presume for other people it's the same thing, otherwise much people would complaim about real pianos.
Of course there is a very small space of time after the key reach the botton of the key dip, and the hammer hit the strings, since there is a point where the hammer is realeased and goes alone, but this short time appears to do not disturb anybody.
The higher velocity, the lower these latencies will be. Maybe the relation it's one thing that helps our brain to see it as natural in real pianos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGY87KUuz8E
About the damper pedal, people would find strange if the damper effects would react imediatelly after the feet touch the pedal. Again it's logic to our brain wait some response only after some portion of the damper move. But I feel that real pianos are not like progressive digital pedals for digital pianos. I had not played many grand pianos, but in the few I palyed the sustein only started to work after the pedal have already move the majoroty of the portion it was able, so it worked very near the botton, and it make halp pedaling considerably more difficult in real grands than in digital pianos with progressive sustein pedals.
I was wondering. What about get a real concert grand piano action, adapt to PNOscan, and set pNOscan to the best latency, and use the best conncetion possible to competer, like EvilDragon use ?
PNOscan use velocity optical sensors that measures the velovity of the key. I imagine it do not need to wait until the wood key reach the deep bottom until send the MIDI signal.
So we would make a experiment:
We set PNOscan to have the best latency possible, probably better than real pianos, and get a pianist to play it . Would he imediately find it strange or not ? Better or worse to use ?
We then allow hin for 2 or 4 weeks, and no other real piano or other digital piano. After that we allow hin play a real grand. Would hin, after that, find the Grand piano latency anoying ?
scherbakov.al wrote:Here is an article referenced by Philippe. (In the picture attracted attention rattling damper with 80 ms).
http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectur...asure.html
And here the interaction of the delay between pressing and hitting the string depends on the dynamics is interesting.
http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectur...ybott.html
At the fortissimo, the hammer strikes the string later than the key reaches its bottom. And the pianissimo delay between the sound and the bottom of the key can reach up to 20 ms (earlier) ..
Hmm .. how much is this dependence implemented in Pianoteq? I'll go play and listen ..
Apparently this is possible only with optical tracking of the hammers, but not with the sensors of conventional keyboards, which are located almost at the bottom of the key ..
Last edited by Beto-Music (19-07-2017 18:59)