Modartt user forum » Pianoteq user forum » Amplification for Pianoteq - better to be as flat as possible?
When I hear myself playing Pianoteq, with speakers or with headphones, should the headphones\speakers be as flat as possible?
I mean, is this considered to be the best way to use Pianoteq, sonically speaking?
Is that how Pianoteq designed to be used, by the developers?
If so, should I assume that monitor speakers are the best amplification for Pianoteq?
IMHO: yes, yes, yes and yes ! :-)
IMHO: yes, yes, yes and yes ! :-)
If so than headphones are generally sucks for Pianoteq because almost no headphones are really flat, no?
Some are flatter than others, though. Either way, you can flatten most popular headphones with software like Sonarworks Reference...
I say this: equalize however you want with the object of creating a sound that you like. Digital equalization is generally superior, if only because it does not require an additional analogue stages/circuitry.
No headphones have particularly flat response, and every speaker system is radically uneven in response; for the latter, room effects are substantial also.
There was a purist phase in the audiophile world where analogue equalization was completely out: none of my fancy analogue stuff has tone controls or any other form of equalization. But considering how profoundly noiseless modern analogue circuits are, analogue equalization is coming back. Moreover, it is really useful. Pianoteq allows for a wide range of effects to be applied digitally, but not every digital source does...
Maybe this software can help you. It is free and worked very fine for me.
Now my analogue equalizer is well set. But there is still another trouble, the knob volume of the amplifier. I have no reference to set it. I never listened the instruments of Pianoteq in the reality. I take the grand piano of our shcool I use to play as a model for the quantity of sound. If someone has a good way to set the volume knob of the amplifier, I would be happy to read it. I speak about the stiings of the real equalizer and amplifier , plugged at the output of the Midi interface, not about pianoteq settings. The goal is to equalize in quality and quantity the sound produced by the speaker and also adapt it to the room to try to match at the maximun with the real instruments sound.
I thought about it, and I assume that Modartt already did all the sound design for us, when they designed the piano models, the effects, and the presets, so considering that assumption, logic tells me that there is no need to additionally color the sound, and yeah, amplification should be as flat as possible.
I thought about it, and I assume that Modartt already did all the sound design for us, when they designed the piano models, the effects, and the presets, so considering that assumption, logic tells me that there is no need to additionally color the sound, and yeah, amplification should be as flat as possible.
I can't agree here. Modartt has given us a lot of tools to tweak the sound--so many that we can make a single PT piano sound many different ways. Part of these changes to change equalization, but adding or reducing the intensity of harmonics and such are seriously messing with things too.
And the final stage of sound reproduction: headphones and speakers--is the one that is the most variable, and also the one with the highest levels of distortion and such. Everyone here must have experienced how radically different one set of headphones is from another. Speaker are far more diverse, even though there's something about listening with speakers that makes us not notice the differences as much as with headphones. Room effects?
In any case, it seems pretty reasonable to me to consider post-PT changes to the sound. In my case, I usually use TB Isone after piano VSTS when using headphones to increase the sense of realism.
Some are flatter than others, though. Either way, you can flatten most popular headphones with software like Sonarworks Reference...
Hello EvilDragon!
If you have experience with Reference, could you please tell me if it works as expected? Could it make an HD650 sound like anything else for instance? And does it add any noticeable latency when playing Pianoteq?
I assume it must be used in a DAW with Pianoteq, right?
Thank you!
Personally, I've always found that attempting to equalise away supposed imperfections in speakers or a room, whether digitally or otherwise, doesn't work. Not exactly sure why - but it really doesn't. And I don't like using headphones. So the only solution for me is high-end speakers in a good room. How flat the frequency response might be I don't know (or care).
EvilDragon wrote:Some are flatter than others, though. Either way, you can flatten most popular headphones with software like Sonarworks Reference...
Hello EvilDragon!
If you have experience with Reference, could you please tell me if it works as expected? Could it make an HD650 sound like anything else for instance? And does it add any noticeable latency when playing Pianoteq?
I assume it must be used in a DAW with Pianoteq, right?Thank you!
It doesn't need to be used with a DAW - it can also work system-wide so that any audio that your OS puts out through your speakers is influenced by Reference.
Yes, it does add some latency mainly because it's a really detailed linear-phase EQ, however there's an option for lower latency IIRC, which uses minimum-phase EQ (filters and EQs will ALWAYS mess with phase of the signal, unless they are linear-phase, but in order to make linear-phase EQs, some latency needs to be introduced).
EDIT: I see now there's also a "zero latency" mode. But I suppose that one will mess with the phase of the signal somewhat. It might not be important for realtime playing of Pianoteq, though.
https://www.sonarworks.com/reference/features
Scroll down to "filter modes".
I am not sure if Reference is supposed to make a particular headphone sound "like anything else", it's made to flatten the frequency response of a particular set of headphones...
mcoll wrote:EvilDragon wrote:Some are flatter than others, though. Either way, you can flatten most popular headphones with software like Sonarworks Reference...
Hello EvilDragon!
If you have experience with Reference, could you please tell me if it works as expected? Could it make an HD650 sound like anything else for instance? And does it add any noticeable latency when playing Pianoteq?
I assume it must be used in a DAW with Pianoteq, right?Thank you!
It doesn't need to be used with a DAW - it can also work system-wide so that any audio that your OS puts out through your speakers is influenced by Reference.
Yes, it does add some latency mainly because it's a really detailed linear-phase EQ, however there's an option for lower latency IIRC, which uses minimum-phase EQ (filters and EQs will ALWAYS mess with phase of the signal, unless they are linear-phase, but in order to make linear-phase EQs, some latency needs to be introduced).
EDIT: I see now there's also a "zero latency" mode. But I suppose that one will mess with the phase of the signal somewhat. It might not be important for realtime playing of Pianoteq, though.
https://www.sonarworks.com/reference/features
Scroll down to "filter modes".
I am not sure if Reference is supposed to make a particular headphone sound "like anything else", it's made to flatten the frequency response of a particular set of headphones...
Thank you very much for the clarification, I missed that part and remembered you mentioned it, so I thought who best to ask than somebody who's probably used it precisely for Pianoteq playing
I did remember the option to simulate other systems though:
"By default Reference 4 will correct your speakers to flat frequency response, but there are numerous options to simulate other systems as well."
I'm not sure it also goes for other headphone models, but it may.
At this point might as well download the demo and have a play with it
I didn't even know there was such a software as Reference 4, definitely going to try the demo
I did try for a couple of days this simplified version of SonarWorks ( https://store.sonarworks.com/products/s...ks-true-fi ) because it featured the correction curve for my AKG 702 headphones. I tried it for normal music listening and Pianoteq. No perceptible added latency in Pianoteq but be warned that the total volume is reduced for the equalization and switching off brings back a much louder sound level!
I didn't keep it in the end. I like the unequalized sound better. Even though the result was flatter, I prefer the more detailed sound of the raw response, probably due to a slight peak in high frequencies.
When I hear myself playing Pianoteq, with speakers or with headphones, should the headphones\speakers be as flat as possible?
No.
If you want to learn about sound reproduction at home, this is a good place to study:
I did try for a couple of days this simplified version of SonarWorks ( https://store.sonarworks.com/products/s...ks-true-fi ) because it featured the correction curve for my AKG 702 headphones. I tried it for normal music listening and Pianoteq. No perceptible added latency in Pianoteq but be warned that the total volume is reduced for the equalization and switching off brings back a much louder sound level!
I didn't keep it in the end. I like the unequalized sound better. Even though the result was flatter, I prefer the more detailed sound of the raw response, probably due to a slight peak in high frequencies.
That's good to know. Another thing that bothers me about the software is that it seems to take no account of your audio interface - it could be some cheapo unbranded thing or a premium RME! As for their online demo, well, call me cynical, but I suspect that there's a bit of trickery going on there. Surely my AKG k240s don't sound that bad... Anyway, still gonna try the demo, if I'm not convinced then there's no harm done.
It's a speaker/headphone "flattenner" software, it's intention is not to "fix" your audio interface. It doesn't have to take it into account at all, since it's a constant in your system.
I didn't keep it in the end. I like the unequalized sound better. Even though the result was flatter, I prefer the more detailed sound of the raw response, probably due to a slight peak in high frequencies.
How long did you use it? Because yes, the compensation curve does make everything sound "weird" at first, and yes it does make you think your (possibly expensive) headphones are a piece of crap (and looking at all of their frequency responses, they all are crap because none are perfectly flat ever!). But, this is literally like placing a set of speakers in a completely different room. Of course they're gonna sound completely different, and that a transition phase is necessary to get accustomed to the new sound. That can last for more than a week, for sure...
Gilles wrote:I didn't keep it in the end. I like the unequalized sound better. Even though the result was flatter, I prefer the more detailed sound of the raw response, probably due to a slight peak in high frequencies.
How long did you use it? Because yes, the compensation curve does make everything sound "weird" at first, and yes it does make you think your (possibly expensive) headphones are a piece of crap (and looking at all of their frequency responses, they all are crap because none are perfectly flat ever!). But, this is literally like placing a set of speakers in a completely different room. Of course they're gonna sound completely different, and that a transition phase is necessary to get accustomed to the new sound. That can last for more than a week, for sure...
I used it for maybe 3 or 4 days, comparing with the bypass switch on varied musical material as well as Pianoteq. I also tried with my Grado SR 80 although the supplied curve is for the more recent model SR 80i but I suppose they are similar. Both headphones show a slight high frequency bump that, in my case, makes for better details. But then, due to age, I may have a loss in that region that is compensated in this way. In no way does this slight bump sound piercing or annoying, so it works for me. Maybe younger ears would react differently.
The compensated bass (both my headphones are a bit bass-shy) is not readily evident for most material, and having tested previously with pure sine waves, I know that the AKG goes down to about 30-40 Hz very easily.
The correction did not introduce any bad artifact, but there is much more to flatness in headphone design, so correcting this parameter may or may not be useful, it's all personal choice. For instance the AKG has a large round over-the-ears design that produces a much better soundstage than the Grado.
When I hear myself playing Pianoteq, with speakers or with headphones, should the headphones\speakers be as flat as possible?
I mean, is this considered to be the best way to use Pianoteq, sonically speaking?
Is that how Pianoteq designed to be used, by the developers?If so, should I assume that monitor speakers are the best amplification for Pianoteq?
Hello everyone,
My feedback (with all its limitations: I'm not professional) is that a static frequency equalization performed downstream of a synthesizer (pianoteq) is very quickly lose information in the musical message. It suffices to note the size of a wav file before and after equalization to be convinced factually. On the other hand, it is sometimes possible to better emphasize the musical message with a dynamic equalization obtained with a multi-band compressor, to bring out certain details initially emitted with too low a sound volume. I was seduced by the plugin Tdrnova which there is a free version already very interesting. (https://www.tokyodawn.net/tdr-nova/) There are certainly many other products that do this.
In this regard, it would be interesting if one day Pianoteq allows its standalone mode to be able to use at least one audio module vst the output choice. Today you have to go through a DAW for this, which is a bit heavy when you just want to play for a quarter of an hour ... Obviously the addition of such a vst can cause problems latency.
As for listening to headphones (I prefer the use of an acoustic piano to that of a virtual instrument on speakerphone, (but I also have the chance to do that), I believe (for those who support listening to headphones) that it is preferable (when possible) to invest in a better headset than in an external device to equalize its bandwidth, my feedback is that it is more It pays to first invest in a good headphone, much more than a headphone amplifier and sometimes even a better quality DAC (or sound card), after which the choice of model is a matter of personal preference. (and unfortunately budget for the best models), knowing however that a relatively flat bandwidth is really useful only up to 14 kHz maximum (11 khz for the over 60s) and that the most important is above all harmonic DISTORTION, to get a sound natural (distortion not only 1Khz but 30hz to 5Khz ideally specifying for what sound level, harmonic distortion to which we must add all the parasitic vibrations not always harmonic of the headphones audi in the range 100hz-15khz).
The piano is a formidable instrument to allow very quickly to eliminate in a few seconds of listening headphones audio (including some of the most expensive) on the criterion of parasitic vibrations, as soon as you raise a little sound level.
For the regularity of the bandwidth, this is less critical, the human ear adapts to a less good headphones (same for an aging ear) on this criterion and the brain compensates to a large extent. (as long as you are not constantly comparing several headphones on the same piece of music - hence the permanent dissatisfaction of some audiophiles ...)
Best regards
Bruno
It suffices to note the size of a wav file before and after equalization to be convinced factually.
WAV is a pure uncompressed audio format, it will have the same filesize regardless of content for the same sample rate, bitdepth and duration. i.e. one minute of silence will have exactly the same filesize as one minute of white noise, or a sine wave. This is easy to verify.
bm wrote:It suffices to note the size of a wav file before and after equalization to be convinced factually.
WAV is a pure uncompressed audio format, it will have the same filesize regardless of content for the same sample rate, bitdepth and duration. i.e. one minute of silence will have exactly the same filesize as one minute of white noise, or a sine wave. This is easy to verify.
Sorry for this error, you are right.
In fact my test was in .flac format 96Khz / 24bits Sample on Kirie Mass in B minor, duration 8.5mn-> 92.5Mb size) with over-amplification test of treble and bass for a very old person, versus same piece with equalization much less heavy, even sampling 96Khz / 24 bits but then1 87 Mb size.
Bruno
Yep, FLAC would be different because it compresses some stuff losslessly, so its filesize can depend on the audio content written in the file.
Hello All,
I must confess to not having read every word of every contribution to this thread, so hopefully I do not step on anyone's toes with what I am about to write:
Just for the record, I am NOT dissing Pianoteq in any way.
Of course, we may discuss flat frequency response, sampling rates, and additions of EQ, compression, FLAC, DAC, MQA and/or third-party reverb, but it seems to me that it may be unrealistic to expect an instrument as tonally complex, massive, and physically voluminous as a piano ... to be reproduced accurately, realistically or forcefully with 1-, 2- or more electrical loudspeakers (to say nothing of headphones) whose own physical volumes occupy the approximate size of a shoebox or a microwave oven. The largest concert grands exceed 1100 pounds / 500 kg with soundboards exceeding a few dozen square feet in radiating area. Even moderately sized grand pianos weigh ~50+% that of concert grands.
True, some amplifiers' combined mono-, stereo- or multi-channel outputs can exceed one horsepower (746 watts) in total wattage, which converts to approximately 7 amps of electrical current @110V drawn from the wall outlet (or 25+ amps @ 30V drawn from the amplifier's output terminals). I have no definitive answer to this observation, but aren't we asking quite a lot of modeled- or sampled piano's sound and audio radiation patterns to be indistinguishable from a large acoustic piano played live? I think this "something-yet-to-be-thoroughly-defined-and-classified" is what at least partially explains how a person can instantly and unequivocally recognize the sound of a real piano played live versus the sound of its reproduced audio.
Food for thought.
Cheers,
Joe
P.S. Isn't it also interesting how a person can recognize an electric guitar being played live through a loudspeaker powered by a Marshall amplifier, as opposed to a recording of the same guitar/amp combination played through an electrical sound system? What characteristic is there of the "sound" that reaches our ears that allows us immediately to distinguish a live acoustic- or amplified instrument from a recording of the same performance or even of the same notes being played (in the event of a mediocre performance by a well-intended amateur)?
The short answer: I don't know.
Joe makes some valid points here, and I have to agree that it is unreasonable to expect a completely accurate piano sound with just loudspeakers or headphones. But would I actually want to reproduce, in every detail including dB level, the sound of a Steinway D4 in my living room? Quite frankly, no, because it would be too overwhelming! Creating a satisfying sonic 'image' of a piano is, I think, what most of us are looking for, and Pianoteq keeps on getting better at helping us to achieve that.
Hey, I don't think that it's unreasonable! As that's what I've been trying to do with Pianoteq and my upright piano for the last three years.
And neither do manufacturers think that it's unreasonable - Witness products like Yamaha's AvantGrand. While you and I both may argue that it doesn't accomplish the goal, the goal of the product is to emulate a grand piano through keyboard, action, case, and speakers.
- David
Well, we're getting back into the 'realism vs. perceived realism' debate now! I wasn't implying that I was unhappy with the 'perceived realism' of Pianoteq - far from it. With good equipment, you can indeed get pretty darn close to the experience of playing a real grand piano.
Well, we're getting back into the 'realism vs. perceived realism' debate now! I wasn't implying that I was unhappy with the 'perceived realism' of Pianoteq - far from it. With good equipment, you can indeed get pretty darn close to the experience of playing a real grand piano.
I completely agree with you! In fact, I own a small upright piano obtained from the early 1970's, but play Pianoteq almost exclusively. About the only time I play the upright piano is when company is around -- AND -- the computer isn't turned on.
Viva la Pianoteq!
Joe
When I hear myself playing Pianoteq, with speakers or with headphones, should the headphones\speakers be as flat as possible?
I mean, is this considered to be the best way to use Pianoteq, sonically speaking?
Is that how Pianoteq designed to be used, by the developers?If so, should I assume that monitor speakers are the best amplification for Pianoteq?
My answer is definitive "no" to all the questions.
@jcfelice88keys
”Isn't it also interesting how a person can recognize an electric guitar being played live through a loudspeaker powered by a Marshall amplifier, as opposed to a recording of the same guitar/amp combination played through an electrical sound system? What characteristic is there of the "sound" that reaches our ears that allows us immediately to distinguish a live acoustic- or amplified instrument from a recording of the same performance or even of the same notes being played (in the event of a mediocre performance by a well-intended amateur)?”
The long answer?And questions.
Maybe there is not much reality in the recordings. Many albums rock, jazz etc is compressed, equalized and so on….so they can’t sound realistic. So, we can distinguish differens.
And then we have the speakers(and headphones). In my opinion, we don’t have the perfect speakers yet (have not found the best for myself). And if we have in the future, can they be made, so they can sound the same in different home and rooms? How can manufacturer eliminate an acustic problem precisely in my room and others at the same time? Maybe sensors in the speakers, that can correct reflections and different acustic problems, like a car’s parking assistent? I am not surprised, if it is the next step in speakers design in the future.
And we hear different. And people are used to hear instruments in a certain way. And personal preference have influence on how we make a decision, good or not so good sound, real sound or not.
I think Pianoteq sounds as a real piano, yes, but we are still struggling (have to struggle) with our musical tools, equipment, and the space/room where we are listening, to get the real sound out (got better acoustics when moved some furniture).
But, thanks Joe, and everyone in this forum for sharing your knowledge and ideas.
Well, that’s what I think about it.
I think the proper answer to that question is spatialization of sound. Live PAs have a looooooot more power and headroom than your typical hi-fi or studio monitoring system, so live amplified sound simply moves a lot more air, which you not only hear, but feel physically, too.
@ EvilDragon ” I think the proper answer to that question is spatialization of sound……”
Thank you for pointing out this. And thanks for all your information/knowledge in this forum. It’s interesting, valuable and useful. Thanks!