Modartt strategy

Hello,

Yes, maybe? will it be difficult for Modartt to collaborate officially with brands like Yamaha (and unfortunately perhaps even Bösendorfer - bought by Yamaha).

However, it remains the alternative of .fxp models, usable with the Standard version and buildable with the Pro version. Even if this approach meets its limits in the absence of specific model (desirable) for a given type of piano.
In the case of the Bösendorfer imperial, I invite you to revisit with the new version Pianoteq 6.2 the excellent model of .fxp created by sskuk1, which benefits greatly from the improvements of ptq 6.2 (link: Bosendorfer Imperial provided you have the model Blüthner of pianoteq )
Examples: (as files .mp3 generated by pianoteq are big, better is to download them on the "Other file" pianoteq forum menu bar)
Rachman prelude C sharp min op3 n2 / sskuk1 bosendorfer imperial / ptq 6.2.0
Mei-Ting-Sun-2009--feux-follets-liszt / sskuk1 fxp bosendorfer imperial / ptq 6.2.0

I have recently tried to build a Bosendorfer 200 .fxp based on the example of the .fxp sskuk1, having the chance to access a Bosen 200 family every day.
Overview same examples (work in progress) generated with pianoteq 6.2: (beware of the size of the files above 5mb (use preferably "other file" download on the menu bar.)
Rachman prelude C sharp min op3 n2 / overview fxp BM Bosen 200 V0.8 / ptq 6.2.0
Mei-Ting-Sun-2009--feux-follets-liszt / overview fxp BM Bosen 200 V0.8 / ptq 6.2.0

Being a former software developer (amateur pianist, unfortunately without the ear of a good piano tuner nor the mathematical skills to understand the detail of the modeling sought), I recorded each note of our piano level ff , retrieved the maximum level of each partial (based on the partial frequencies proposed by Pianoteq pro) by retrieving the spectrum values (Blackman-Harris) from Audacity, starting each sample analyzed at the beginning of the decay period of the 'envelope.
I used spectral windows halved each new octave (65k, 32k, up to 512 for the highest notes). to limit the loss of the level of high harmonics. Then comparing the level of each partial of the same note to the same level between pianoteq and the actual piano, for a given note, (automatically thankfully), I then place manually in the clipboard (Ctl-C / Ctl-V ), the edited result (in the format expected by pianoteq), so that Ptq retrieves it in its "note edit / spectrum profile" window.
The "raw" result is appalling, but by "reconstructing" a function of rescale dividing by 4 the level (dividing by more - according to an interpolled function imitating the rescale of pianoteq - when the difference exceeds 10db), we arrive at something listenable, or we find part of the timbre of the original piano (although less subtle than the .fxp starting sskuk1).
We also find some of the defects of the original piano bosen 200 (35 years old) that does not have the full extent of the imperial bosendorfer on which sskuk1 based and some parasitic vibrations in the acute. (At the current stage of my work as a beginner with Pianoteq pro, my .fxp is currently "mechanically" out of my computer processing without readjustment to the indisputably necessary ear.I would put the .fxp obtained on the site when I will have readjusted (for the capture of pianoteq) with version 6.2, and would do if I have the time a try also with the new model Steingraeber.

My need (besides a better ear and a more flexible wrist), would be to benefit in a future evolution of the pro version, more parameters to refine the setting obtained from a real piano. I thought I heard ? that the current "spectrum profile" impacts the harmonic balance produced especially at the beginning of the sound envelope. Ideally it should be? (if compatible with the mode of modeling) to be able to modify this balance between harmonics with other stages of the evolution of the envelope, at least at the time of the slow decay of the level.
For each note there are also modulations responsible for a rapid change in the balance between harmonics, which should also be able to be set, to give the "song" of each note an even more lively character.
I remain aware that this need, in addition to the important design work it requires must still be enforceable by a PC that is not a monster. However, it would be interesting to explore the tremendous power made available by the current graphics cards (I think the CUDA interface of Nvidia cards for example to massively parallel processing on several thousand processors - even if PC gammer are equipped fans whose noise seriously pollutes the shades made with a virtual piano)

Regards,

It may be that "factory authorized" partnerships are a PART of their strategy.
As to why... ?
Available alternatives in the "marketplace" are mostly sample based, I say "based" because there is post processing to clean things up.
I don't know of any factory authorized sample libraries, but I don't follow that closely.
I do remember that in the early days of sampling there were some attempts to copyright instrument sounds, I don't know what happened to that.
The factory endorsement has value to both Modartt and to the wooden piano maker.
If we develop a preference for a particular pianoteq instrument we are more likely to look for that brand of physical wooden piano if/when we browse around the store, and buy it if/when funds permit.

I was pleased to see the Steingraeber E-272, it seems to be a break in the strategy toward modern pianos.

As far as IOS goes... I don't see any advantage for Modartt to go in that direction, other than exposure and exposure in the lo-fi arena would probably not be good.
JMAO, etc.

Hello,

Thank you for updating your .fpx de bosendorfer imperial.
Finally I published "as is" my current version of bosendorfer fxp 200 (V0.8) for ptq 6.2 (there is still a lot of work to improve it)
link: Bosendorfer 200 v0.8 for ptq 6.2.0 - work in progress -
I added a little demonstration of this fxp with the fantasy no 3 of Mozart K397 (unknown pianist, midi file: https://www.classicalmidi.co.uk/351fandm.mid )
link: fantasia no 3 in D - Mozart K397
If anybody wish try to make a Bosendorfer 200 fxp test, I added the original files that I recorded (note by note on the real piano/ ff level) to make this preset, links:
RealBosen200(35y old)Samples_ff_level (part 1) for BM Bosendorfer200Ptq6.2Fxp-V0.8   
RealBosen200(35y old)Samples_ff_level (part 2) for BM Bosendorfer200Ptq6.2Fxp-V0.8   

Finally, here is this fantasy played on a real Bosendorfer 200 of 2014
Youtube video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPjgFR_4b3s) with the pianist Derek Vann

Regards,

Absolutely not a shame in not being interested in iOS. Why would they want to give 30% of profits to Apple, and depreciate their own product (because they sure as hell cannot keep their current pricing structure for iOS)?

Much bigger market also cries for much more customer support. It's a rabbit hole.

Meanwhile, I'm very happy using Pianoteq as is with touch and all, on my Surface, and Modartt didn't need to change their pricing structure to satisfy lowest common denominators of Apple's walled garden realm. Hah!

I will be perfectly happy if Modartt continues to ignore iOS as they should, and focus more on their modeling technology, which is much more important.

Very interesting test showing the toll taken by ageing on our hearing! Great sample...

EvilDragoj said : I will be perfectly happy if Modartt continues to ignore iOS as they should, and focus more on their modeling technology, which is much more important.

+1

Well, after all the earlier arguments against IOs (who needs tablets, technologically impossible, Apple is evil, too expensive, etc.) we now have the final death blow: it is unwise for companies to pursue a bigger market, as the costs of support would go up. Are you really serious?

I actually feel the same and there is wisdom in it (in my opinion).

For stage use, gigging, etc, there are already great sounding options out there and the audience won't feel the difference in the least if you're using a high quality stage piano or a VST. But if you still want to go the VST rout, you could run it from a laptop / surface obviously.

And for home or studio use, whether playing or recording, when using high quality monitors or headphones and you feel every little nuance, personally I'd like it to be the best it can be, not a poorer version of the current product that would also dilute the company's ability to further improve the current product.

You can buy a used laptop that's much more potent than an iPad for about the same money. There's also mini PCs to be had for reasonable sums that easily outperform iPads. Why would you want a poorer quality app on the iPad? You can just as well use the internal sounds in that case.

Bottom line - for portability and gigging, you can use a laptop or a surface tablet, but why would you, when the difference in sound quality won't be perceived? You're better off using a good stage piano for a good number of reasons. And for home/studio use, personally I feel the best quality is the most desirable target.

PS. When going the PC route you can also get a large display (23-24", optionally with a touchscreen) to display the music.

I wonder how many new licenses they would sell if a ios version were available... I believe they have studied this and it is not worth the effort.

About if apple is or not evil... i-things are expensive, sufficient reason for me to stay apart.

Gorgeous preset. Wonderful to play.

I will be curious to discover the result ...
In late summer I intend to offer on the site also the recorded notes of a second piano (Erard Model No2 of 2.48m 1899 - parallel strings) just after it is retuned.
Regards,

Bruno

NB: in case of difficulties to download the .flacs files notes Bosendorfer 200 on the site of my ISP (which limits simultaneous connections for download), I temporarily (for next 6 days free for me) also deposited these files on the following links:
Bosen200real35yOldSamplesFFlevelExceptb.flac (parts1+2)

Very nice, Gilles, and so much 'cleaner' sounding than the preset based on the Bluethner for the Bosendorfer 200 - though the tone is different, the Bluethner version sounds as if I am listening through a sheet of drywall/gypsum board.  It's so hard to get these things "right"!  I have frequently lost patience when I try to tweak things.

I love the Steinway B, ever since version 6.1, which really breathed new life into it.  Closest thing to my Mom's 1957 "M".

I see the birth of some sort of "Bosendorfer ? ...me too" movement in this forum.

But I bet the imperial Bosendorfer add on probably will be created more later, when Modart technology will be even closer to please the few ultra hard critic guys who love samplers. And a Bosendorfer it's large, have extra strings, and I bet it will take some few move computer power.

Anyway it's interesting to see you guys trying to emulate a imperial Bosendorfer using the already exiting models.

I would say the decay does not really concern the hammer noise, but essentially the string partials, which can be controlled by several parameters including unison, direct sound duration and soundboard impedance.

Maybe effects (EQ, compressor)? Post-processing? The "distance" between a raw recording and the final sound, whether it be music, samples library..., is simply amazing.

In fact, any good transient designer will do... NI has one that is pretty great as well.

As I write in the PtqSpecProf pdf doc, I tried many lengths but short ones (around 1.5 seconds) give good results as well as being practical to shorten the total work. Your samples are longer but I still compared with shorter ones from pianoteq, what is captured really is an average spectrum at the start of the note, the decay is to be handled by pianoteq itself. I can use all the common windows, but for a short sample rectangular works fine. My default number of samples for the FFT is 16384, but I can go higher. I found the relative volume has no real importance (apart from the spectrum content itself) since the spectrum is more or less auto-scaling from 0 dB down. I also center the resulting changes around the average value.

This is all amateur work, I am not an expert in signal processing, but conversations with Philippe at the time revealed no bad mistakes on my part if I remember well.

One very useful tool in the Spectrum Profile tool is the rescale function. I use it a lot when the given result sounds bad. It keeps the change in color found but reduces it if it is not natural. The tricky octave is the middle one, where the balance is difficult to get. In the lower registers there is a lot of harmonics so the result usually is ok as is. In the higher registers, differences in spectrum are less important than the attack itself.

During your short test with Steingraeber, did you use this model directly with its code length of 2.72m compared to the actual Bösendorfer 200 recordings?
(I say that these are raw recordings, but I only use the beginning of each note about 0.7 s for the first octave, dividing by half this duration with each new octave, and using a parallel window 2 times shorter with each new octave (65k then 32k up to 0.512k for the highest notes)
For my part, with the model Bluethner I first reduced the size of the strings to 2m (more exactly 2.1m) before making the comparison, so that the high partial frequencies can remain comparable between the real piano and Pianoteq.
I also avoided using for the partials simple multiples of the fundamental, by aligning me on the frequency of the partial as indicated by pianoteq for each partial in the spectrum profile window. To integrate a few more partials than what Pianoteq presents today in its spectrum profile window, I extrapolated the frequencies of the top partials not presented in the pianoteq window with a polynomial function (trend) by relying on the partial frequencies described by pianoteq. (Pianoteq seems apriori capable of exploiting partials well beyond the limit of the partial No indicated in the spectrum profile window, but on the other hand does not know (today) not manage them with the function of rescaling, which requires to reconstruct either this rescaling function itself) I set myself today a limit of 250 partial and a maximum frequency of 45Khz (that neither my ears nor my scan card from micro can not handle ...). A difficulty is to consider the string stiffness that seems different from one piano model to another, and I guess may be different with Bösendorfer. To adjust the length of strings to use with Pianoteq, I check if the frequencies of partials a bit high (around 8khz) correspond between pianoteq and the real piano for level peaks, and for the rest trust my ears. (Hence my approximation of 2.1m for piano pianoteq compared to the real piano of 2m). This is totally empirical and maybe a wrong approach, I do not really know.
Regards,

Bruno