Modartt user forum » Pianoteq user forum » Have there ever been double blind tests of Pianoteq vs acoustic?
I'm convinced that very few people can tell, by listening to high quality recordings, which is an acoustic piano and which is Pianoteq.
But there are a ton of seemingly-snobby types that insist that the difference is obvious. (they prefer acoustic of course)
Has this sort of test ever been done? I've Googled around and can't find anything.
Hi robbrown, these are some posts I revisited, thanks for your question which gave me this really enjoyable detour today.
Here's pianist extraordinaire, fellow Pianoteq forum user and very earnest gentleman jcfelice88keys playing Rhapsody In Blue, some 10 years ago, to give some sense of how even back at that version, a fine pianist might use Pianoteq. (With more than mere thanks and appreciation to Joe who's certainly inspired myself and many others to look into Pianoteq with a sincere justification because of his many informative posts. Joe's impressive playing has also certainly inspired the realisation that I must 'git gud' in terms of my own pianistic skills and I can also then hope to better experience more of the joys Pianoteq has to offer us, a journey I wish should never come to a close).
Rhapsody In Blue -- Not played by Gershwin Piano Roll
IF we find ourselves temporarily embarrassed in the shade of someone in the top tier like Joe with his many years of dedication to his calling, we do have the ability to load excellent MIDI files in both regular and high resolution, like those from the International piano-e-competition.
piano-e-competition audio examples on Pianoteq
And directly linking to the e-competition MIDI for those wanting to try out Pianoteq as a modern day "Player Piano" or Pianola, which probably should be in every household, at least in my perfect world
Minnesota International Piano-e-Competition
`````
The next by dklien is a situational recording via cell phone, a real Steinway M and Pianoteq Steinways on good speakers in the same room. It's not scientific but specifically shows that on equipment which can handle volume, you could be stood in a room with eyes closed and probably have to second guess. I enjoyed revisiting this for the delightful candid interractions.
Comparison of Pianoteq Steinway D & B vs real Steinway M
`````
Next one I remember well, is gtingley's interesting comparison (not sure right now what version of Pianoteq, but around mid last year). He was in the company of a fine recording engineer with good microphones and set up his Pianoteq preset to fairly closely simulate the way the real piano was mic'd up. The link to the initial post, the second link to the post containing the audio.
Actual Steinway B vs. Pianoteq Steinway B
Actual Steinway B vs. Pianoteq Steinway B: you be the judge
`````
You can find a lot of posts with a search like this:
Click the link on the forum's menu bar "Search"
Type in the main box something simple with just relevant key words, in this case I used..
pianoteq comparison real
then hit enter and quite a good selection of past forum posts appears.
`````
Pianoteq's at version 6.6.0 at this time, and so has increased (I'd say quite dramatically) in realism since I've last encountered comparisons online.
There was a video from the version 5 era (again a Steinway comparison) - but I'd really like to hear a version 6 side by side for sure.
In some videos, people take a lovely studio produced recording of a real piano played well by a fine pianist, then A/B it with a badly played or stiff MIDI piece with totally different kind of preset (or piano type) audio and zero production values (compressed Youtube audio etc.) - much of this kind of thing is, other than novelty, utterly useless to anyone without any sound basis for comparison.
Pianoteq, for me, is like an armada of incredible pianos (from any angle, audio thru playability - esp. with good digital keyboard), a library of recording and playing possibilities - and not a day passes where I don't feel compelled to dig in to it in some way.
At just over 50 Mb, I can tell you that I've regained many gigs of HD space by removing many old sampled piano libraries, which I now find un-listenable, and entirely unplayable (with some regret for the wonderful work these people and companies have done of course - hat tip! but I feel Modartt's modeling is out of bounds or off the old chart by comparison in too many ways to be worth comparing now, esp. after version 4), therefore other systems seem honestly un-recordable by comparison, to me these days. Playability is important to me (and the only way to truly improve! is to have that faculty in the piano product to adequately respond in as many ways as in reality on a real physical piano), and there really is nothing else like Pianoteq in the software world.
It's like having a well recorded piano, already on tape with every session played (auto record to MIDI and easy export to audio etc.) - then it's up to us, with our producer hats on, to decide if we want to run it through a tasty DAW/studio production chain and so on.
Just like a real piano recording, you can accentuate or damp any frequencies, push, pull, compress, get shimmer, get it wide, put on some warm tube or console vibe in the same way that "real pianos" get treated in a studio (often the ones people want to compare Pianoteq to).
If not interested in any of that, it's still absolutely usable with defaults IMO.
With defaults in Pianoteq, you can clearly now achieve audio quite like a good recording with little to no further work on our part in tweaking all the settings.
The near future sounds brighter for it.
Has this sort of test ever been done? I've Googled around and can't find anything.
Well the best "test" is not a direct comparison but the fact that Steingraeber use Pianoteq in the adsilent system that their acoustic pianos are equipped with. If Steingraeber consider it good enough for people who actually have a real piano they sold them to compare it with, then that's pretty much as good as anyone can hope for, IMO.
The fact that the modern piano models in Pianoteq are all approved by the makers (including Steinway, which is rather impressive) ought to be pretty heavyweight evidence as well. These companies don't throw their names out to attach to just any old products - sound is their reputation.
I'm convinced that very few people can tell, by listening to high quality recordings, which is an acoustic piano and which is Pianoteq.
But there are a ton of seemingly-snobby types that insist that the difference is obvious. (they prefer acoustic of course)
When professional musicians and piano tuners tell me it sounds really close to the real thing, I'm not going to do better with my ears. They don't say it's perfect because a physical piano gives physical feedback and have a huge soundboard that a few speakers cannot ever completely emulate. All pianos (even of the same make) will have slight differences which an experienced ear will notice if they listen for them.
So I think it's unfair to describe these folks as snobby when in most cases (IMO especially on this forum) genuinely experienced people giving honest opinions.
When professional musicians and piano tuners tell me it sounds really close to the real thing, I'm not going to do better with my ears. They don't say it's perfect because a physical piano gives physical feedback and have a huge soundboard that a few speakers cannot ever completely emulate. All pianos (even of the same make) will have slight differences which an experienced ear will notice if they listen for them.
So I think it's unfair to describe these folks as snobby when in most cases (IMO especially on this forum) genuinely experienced people giving honest opinions.
Yep, you've just about nailed it there. As much as I love Pianoteq, I'm not getting rid of my acoustic upright for exactly the reasons that you describe here. Pianoteq gives me lots of things that my acoustic can't, so they complement each other.
They don't say it's perfect because a physical piano gives physical feedback and have a huge soundboard that a few speakers cannot ever completely emulate.
True, but that's why I was interested in the difference in a recorded version. In other words, both would be coming out of speakers, but one is an acoustic piano recorded with microphones, and one is Pianoteq, recorded directly through the computer.
I don't dispute that there are differences, but I'm not convinced that acoustic is necessarily consistently better.
Again, I'm suggesting that a double blind test would be valuable. I have seen audio experts who swore up and down that they could hear significant differences between CD quality audio and high resolution digital audio, but double blind tests have since proven that it was all the placebo effect. ( https://kirkville.com/well-crafted-stud...sic-files/ )
I also am a bit more interested in whether "regular" people can tell the difference when they hear them side by side, and consistently rate the acoustic better. This would be a good thing to know if you have a recording studio and want to know whether it is worth your money to invest in an expensive piano, along with climate control and regular tuning. (not to mention the fact that an acoustic piano doesn't allow for tweaking the MIDI and such).
There are 2 aspects to this: comparing playing/listening to acoustic vs Pianoteq live and comparing listening to acoustic/Pianoteq recordings over the same sound system. Live, the acoustic wins, because the live sound of an acoustic will be demonstrably better than "normal", even high end, equipment. Years' ago, when I was considering going digital, I played, side by side, a Yamaha concert grand and the Yamaha Grantouch digital. Absolutely no contest. Eventually I went digital and picked up Pianoteq when version 5 came out. Now, listening to commercial recordings and my own - forgetting the quality of performance - sometimes the commercial recording sounds better, at other times Pianoteq 6. I believe a blind test of acoustic/Pianoteq recordings would confuse many of the Pianoteq sceptics on Piano World.
I agree also with the effect of the skill of the pianist. I have listened to my performances of some pieces and compared them with recordings from e-competitions, using the same fxp. It's galling to conclude that the rendering of my midi file sounds inferior to that from the competition and the only reason is the skill of the respective pianists re touch etc. Tempting to put it down to the sensitivity of a concert grand vs my modest ES7, but my experience tells me that, even given the shortcomings of a modest keyboard, grands - I still have access to one - are way more difficult to control than DP keyboards. (One reason I so enjoy playing Pianoteq instruments, the famed "playability".
Given that my playing time in the future will be a fraction of what I have already had, I'm very happy to have Pianoteq and now that I have settled on one - for the most part - the Steingraeber - I can enjoy playing "my" piano. It reminds me of the settled phase - 20 years - of my harpsichord playing/owning. The joy of becoming really familiar with your own instrument. (It was roughly equivalent in piano terms to a Steinway D) My occasional use of other Pianoteq instruments necessitates a short period of adjustment, not just to the sound but also, weirdly, the touch, as if the physical keyboard was different. Evidence of the quality of the modelling.
I believe a blind test of acoustic/Pianoteq recordings would confuse many of the Pianoteq sceptics on Piano World.
How so? Do you mean confuse in the sense of "they couldn't tell which was acoustic and which as Pianoteq" or in the sense of "they wouldn't know how to interpret the results of such a test"? Now I'm confused.
I agree also with the effect of the skill of the pianist.
Yes, a good test would use the same person playing. A really good test might use something like the Steinway Spirio, which is a high resolution player piano, so you could actually have both recordings created from the same performance. Or maybe have them play it live on an acoustic piano that also has MIDI out (e.g. https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/bob-moog-piano-bar ), which you can use for the MIDI data to drive Pianoteq. (that's a bit cheaper than a Spirio!)
sandalholme wrote:I believe a blind test of acoustic/Pianoteq recordings would confuse many of the Pianoteq sceptics on Piano World.
How so? Do you mean confuse in the sense of "they couldn't tell which was acoustic and which as Pianoteq" or in the sense of "they wouldn't know how to interpret the results of such a test"? Now I'm confused.
sandalholme wrote:I agree also with the effect of the skill of the pianist.
Yes, a good test would use the same person playing. A really good test might use something like the Steinway Spirio, which is a high resolution player piano, so you could actually have both recordings created from the same performance. Or maybe have them play it live on an acoustic piano that also has MIDI out (e.g. https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/bob-moog-piano-bar ), which you can use for the MIDI data to drive Pianoteq. (that's a bit cheaper than a Spirio!)
Re "confuse", there are a number of sceptics on Piano world who viscerally hate Pianoteq. There are also some who can detect what they call the "Pianoteq" sound and dislike it, which is fair enough. It is the former group I was referring to: the cognitive dissonance which would arise when faced with having preferred Pianoteq. The "it cannot be so" experience, which either leads to an exploration by a newly opened mind - which could still conclude negatively re Pianoteq - or the search for reasons why their reaction was flawed for various reasons in order to maintain their status quo: Pianoteq is inferior, synthetic etc etc.
The sort of A/B test which I would be very interested to hear would go something like this:
A: record an acoustic piano in a nice resonant hall.
B: in Pianoteq, recreate the mic setting from the acoustic session and use an IR taken from the actual hall.
It would be possible, if somebody had the time and resources to do it.
I believe a blind test of acoustic/Pianoteq recordings would confuse many of the Pianoteq sceptics on Piano World.
Having had to try and explain to flat-earthers the physics and reasons why Earth ain't flat and how we know this, I can tell you that even if you revealed t them that - ta da ! - the one they thought was real was Pianoteq - they'd still tell you all sorts of reasons why the test was invalid. You can never overcome hardcore skeptics.
I can also tell you that if you did a dirty trick and played them the same recording, one labelled "Pianoteq Steinway D" and one "Real Steinway D", they'd flock to tell you how "obvious" it was (to them) that Pianoteq didn't sound real. If you reveal the con, they'd simply say you're lying or there was more trickery at work. There is no winning with people with such entrenched views.
I was interested in the difference in a recorded version. In other words, both would be coming out of speakers, but one is an acoustic piano recorded with microphones, and one is Pianoteq, recorded directly through the computer.
It is close to impossible to completely match microphone positions, microphone type and frequency performance, reverb, and all the very subtle and precise details between two such tests. It sounds simple, but the considerable effort and investment in time that Modartt must put in to making a new piano model (which involved highly controlled recordings being made in good conditions) should alert us to how difficult this is in practice.
And when Modartt do that note that they are, as I understand it, modelling to match one specific piano. Compare the resulting Pianoteq model to another of the same make and there will be difference, albeit generally subtle ones.
So the idea sounds fine in theory, but is a minefield of complexity in practice.
And, in relation to your comment about testing the result on skeptics, like some of those on Pianoworld, would be folly.
At this point I have stopped even bothering to compare the sounds to real pianos. Why bother ? I use Pianoteq to (try) and play nice music and make nice sounds. A few adhoc tests after version 6 appear have told me I probably could match the sound of any performance well enough (if I could just play well enough and spent long enough tweaking things). And that's the bottom line for me - I can't play as well as real pros and I have no actual need to fool anyone into thinking I'm playing a real piano, so why worry when "good enough" is all I need. There are, for me, no jarring moments when I detect anything artificial (in version 5 the K2 gave me some moments like that, but not now - version 6 raised the bar).
Some people, and some pianoteq's haters, are trainned to spot pianoteq's sound, even if 90% of people don't got the difference easily.
For some people small differences takes a lot.
A example : I'm not a pianoteq hater but I'm a LCD (LED TV also uses a LCD panel) TV and even digital broadcast TV hater. I can't stand the angle distortion, uneven light distribution, white clipping and black crushing, motion blur, poor responde time and poor refresh rate, all such crap of LCD panels. I refuse to watch any movie on LCD/LED TVs, since I can't get enterteinment from such annoying things. This plus the many artifacts created by video compression (usually poor) that shakes and appears more when the image changes more often, plus the banding artifacts making degrade a thing from the past and lost today, fine detail loss making HD look like SD and 4K look like HD, and blocking popping everywhere.
I prefered the analogic transmission and the CRT TVs. Honestly. I don't watch TV or movies any longer, since I can't find any sysem free of such freaking disturbing digital anomalies.
I just can't understand how people sit in front of such things and watch TV without complain, since for me it's just a abomination, all these many deffects combined at same time, a freek beast thing to look at. By comparison pianoteq it's much closer to real pianos than digital TV & broadcast are close to perfect image.
But judging pianoteq today, if I would dare complain or suggest, I would say, and it's just a guess, that pianoteq need to focus a bit in the absorbing of some sounds. Sounds are enhanced but also absorbed, by the piano body. It feels some sounds, some fractions of it, need to be more absorbed
sjgcit wrote ”At this point I have stopped even bothering to compare the sounds to real piano”
I have also stopped to compare Ptq to acustic pianos. I have the same experience as Phil Best in one of his reviews. He tested ”sampled pianos and Ptq against acustic pianos. People can’t tell the differens although they claim they can”. And if my friend have the attitude, that a digital instrument can’t sound the same, I no longer discuss it with him. I’m just enjoy playing ptq :-)
That’s what I think.
It is close to impossible to completely match microphone positions, microphone type and frequency performance, reverb, and all the very subtle and precise details between two such tests. It sounds simple, but the considerable effort and investment in time that Modartt must put in to making a new piano model (which involved highly controlled recordings being made in good conditions) should alert us to how difficult this is in practice.
Really this shouldn't be necessary.
It's not to test whether they can hear any differences, it's whether one or the other sounds better, i.e. more authentic. That is, can they tell which is Pianoteq, and which is acoustic? The samples don't even need to of the same piece. You could have 50 samples done with Pianoteq, and 50 done with acoustic pianos, and see what percentage the subjects guess correctly.
I would think that this is something that Pianoteq/Modartt themselves would want to be doing, but of course they should hire it out so as to reduce the bias.
If I was running a recording studio, I'd certainly want to know the results. There are immense advantages of being able to capture a performance as MIDI and only as a final step render it to sound. (aside from saving some money on having to keep one or more pianos in the studio and tuned)
It's not to test whether they can hear any differences, it's whether one or the other sounds better, i.e. more authentic. That is, can they tell which is Pianoteq, and which is acoustic?
More authentic ? By definition if you're comparing a real e.g. Steinway D to a Pianoteq Steinway D then the real Steinway is 100% authentic and that's all there is to it. How could a real Steinway D be less (or more) that 100% accurate to itself ?
And how could you judge Pianoteq to be more accurate than the actual instrument you compare it to ? That doesn't make sense. Again it can't be more than 100% accurate at best.
Telling which is Pianoteq and which is acoustic is quote a different thing to being accurate. What you're really testing in these circumstances is whether the subjective idea of what the real instrument should sound like is matches what they hear. This is not comparing the two, this is comparing each one to each listener's own internal idea and recollection of what they think it should sound like.
This test can actually give a huge range of variations. They could e.g. completely fail to detect the real piano because it has some quirk (as all real pianos do) of it's own that is noticeably different from what the expect.
Probably should have posted these, plus their direct source audio files:
This comparison by forum user gtingley (with a professional Steve Jarvis with excellent mics on a great sound stage, compares Steinway B)...
The forum thread:
Actual Steinway B vs. Pianoteq Steinway B: you be the judge
It's direct audio file on SoundCloud:
Actual vs Virtual Piano by George Peter Tingley
This one is dklein recording 2 Steinways in a room (one real, one Pianoteq) over a sound system with enough oomph to fool anyone wearing a blindfold perhaps - it's fabulous hearing these regardless that it's not a scientific thing - more human and 'real world' in that sense...
The forum thread:
Comparison of Pianoteq Steinway D & B vs real Steinway M
It's 2 direct audio files on the forum:
Just thought, probably this is cool too for people wanting to know if you can get a certain recorded piano sound..
That contains 3 workshops with clear audio examples, regarding how to come close to a particular piano sound in source recordings. Really appreciate it - and like so much good info on the Pianoteq site, it's probably not pointed to enough from the forum.
The conversation on this topic probably shows, it's interesting stuff but I'm definitely feeling since version 4, there's no reason to fret it so much.
@sjgcit - yeah, there's no helping some people. I too worry about flat earth type entrenched views permeating into all kinds of quality fields..
@dazric - I sort of like your specific testing idea - maybe it would make an enjoyable mini-mini-documentary maybe (like the video of the Petrof being modeled, with Pilippe and/or others at Modartt commenting/observing while the good techs go about the process). The cost to do it well? Probably way larger amounts vs. what returns it induces. An official thing may also just induce negative arranging flocks of flat earth type opinions, so maybe it's best left to users to give that a try.
Like sjgcit mentions, it won't convince skeptics because, the outcome will be about comparing what comes out of 2 speakers - many will listen on $2 earphones on a laptop or.. ahem.. telephone (probably a bunch not knowing their.. ahem.. telephone is outputting a mono signal with a bare minimal frequency range - but they'll still wax lyrical about "depth" and "feel"). I genuinely feel great sorrow for some, who, maybe if they could experience a good sound system might be able to have a better life with less angst about the nuances.
Always, there's this dilemma, which I've also pointed to occasionally, and see surfaced from time to time, that one may say "compare" and immediately, some think
"Pianos in the same room"
and others think
"That nice old Ray Charles record vs. Pianoteq"
and many will only be able to listen on disposable airline earphones and comment about nuances (hate to say it, Youtube comment style). I put it all down as enjoyable circus - but peripheral in overall import. But, if someone can't dissociate these 2 very different things, then all discussion about comparisons tend to lead to everyone mixing up analogies until it's a fractal mess of non-issues being bandied around. But - that's half the fun of being human, I suppose?
Like sjgcit also mentions, there's the fabulous Steingraeber with Pianoteq built in via adsilent system.. to me, in all honesty, things have moved way beyond trying to educate people about what audio processing is (after all, they only will hear these comparisons if they click a link on the internet and listen on their laptop speakers).. in order for them to be able to understand the differences between a real piano and a recording of a real piano.
Remember - "This is not a pipe".
More authentic ? By definition if you're comparing a real e.g. Steinway D to a Pianoteq Steinway D then the real Steinway is 100% authentic and that's all there is to it. How could a real Steinway D be less (or more) that 100% accurate to itself ?
I don't think you understand. I'm not questioning whether it sounds more authentic than the original, I'm questioning whether people (both experts and regular folk) can tell which is authentic and which is not, by listening. This is a relevant question if I am, for instance, producing a song and deciding whether it is worth it to have it played on a real piano, with all the costs and downsides (i.e. can't tweak the performance or change as many settings after the fact, etc). Or if I am setting up a studio and deciding whether to buy/maintain/mic a piano or two, vs using MIDI and Pianoteq.
I just tried asking people on Quora, and posted a video of the Pianoteq contest winner from last year to see if anyone noticed if something sounded a bit off. This is what someone said:
"No, that’s normal for a Kawai. They are a peculiar piano; but, a great one too. They really hold their own with that sweet sound. I take that over a Yamaha upright any day. Any day. It’s no Synth. That is the KAWAI upright sound. They are very good."
https://www.quora.com/Is-something-wron...l-Cooper-2
So I'm curious if a proper test has been done.
Probably should have posted these, plus their direct source audio files:
This comparison by forum user gtingley (with a professional Steve Jarvis with excellent mics on a great sound stage, compares Steinway B)...
Thanks this is great and a lot more what I was looking for, although it would be great if they were mixed up so people had to try to guess for each example. (and it would be nice if people reported on what they were listening with) Was it agreed that in all five excerpts, the second one was Pianoteq? Although I can hear differences of course, they sound equally good to me. (and no I'm not listening on earbuds or laptop speakers, but I don't have an amazing sound system either)
I would think that a skeptic that was unable to get them all right might be a little less vocal with their skepticism in the future. Wouldn't you think?
I just tried asking people on Quora, and posted a video of the Pianoteq contest winner from last year ...
That little example should tell you enough. Frankly I'm not sure that even when describing acoustic pianos most people (most ordinary people who listen to a lot of piano music) would be able to tell one piano model from another in a double blind test. But, in relation to your original question, I think it's unfair to say that at least some of the people stating they hear differences between Pianoteq models and real pianos of the corresponding model they have experience of are being e.g. snobby. There are people who have spent a lifetime paying their mortgage on being able to tell quite subtle differences between instruments (and indeed in being able to tailor the sound of specific instruments to exactly what the owner wants).
There just are some people that good.
Or if I am setting up a studio and deciding whether to buy/maintain/mic a piano or two, vs using MIDI and Pianoteq.
Note that different issues come into play in the commercial world of music. Authenticity is not, IMO, the main issue here unless you're e.g. making a recording of Valentina Lisitsa playing Rach 3 or something like that. The main issue for most musical pros doing this would be (IMO) :
* reliability
* space
* cost, including maintenance
* how they fit the recording process
* if relevant how they fit the live performance process
The practical reality is that keeping a piano in good condition (in tune at a minimum, good keyboard) takes money. Money tends to be the bottom line and honestly if a synthetic piano does a "good enough" job for your target then you're going to use that if it's a money saver over all. Space is important because space costs money. Moving real pianos is a heck of a lot more expensive than moving even a top of the line hammer action controller keyboard. Insurance costs money - no problem guessing which is cheaper to insure.
An instrument that (for a studio) feeds a clean sound direct into digital recording is fine, perhaps even better for some, than an instrument requiring careful positioning of mikes and so on - that takes time and time is money.
To a live musician playing at e.g. a wedding, in a bar or a business event, the option to use a top quality piano is often not practical or even possible. If a couple of grand's worth of synthetic piano can be packed into your car or van easily and driven to the gig and the sound is "good enough" (that expression again !), then that's a better option for you. Usually its the speaker system at the other end (or that you bring with you) that matters - feedback, weird interference from whatever, etc. . The practical jobbing musician has issues to worry about which have a higher priority than authentic sound.
The people you sell product to matter here. Good enough is what you're aiming at. If the customer is happy with the sound then nothing else matters. These days synthetic pianos (the better ones) are good enough for very high standard work of a commercial nature.
Reliability is an issue here. This is why you'll see posts about drop outs and other audio kinks getting a lot of detailed attention here. "Good enough" is all you need as long as it's "good enough" for the entire gig with no drop outs or crackling or pops, etc.. Any of those are deal breakers.
And, honestly, for many musicians, a good hammer action keyboard and sythentic piano may be a better "piano" than the ones they trained on for years. It's a bit like racing drivers - you don't learn your trade in F1 cars, you learn on something less fabulous in average condition or worse. If you are lucky your piano teachers keep a nice piano in good condition. I love jazz piano and many great old live recordings by legendary names were made on pianos best described as "heavily used, sometimes maintained". The great Art Tatum used to listen to other people's night club gigs, be invited up to play a quick number or two and, while he was listening, have picked up all the dodgy out of tune notes and sticky keys (he was basically blind, BTW) and played around them ! The best musicians actually can work with "bangers" of pianos - it's the rest of us that are so fussy, IMO. :-)
So what I'm saying is that "good enough", "authentic" and "commercial" are very moveable ideas. Even if a pro in a studio can tell it's not a real piano, that's not the deciding factor. "Good enough" is the standard aimed for, not authentic.
sjgcit, I agree with most everything you say there, although if I was choosing to use synthesized piano in a recording studio, I'd certainly like to be able to argue that it sounds authentic to the vast majority of ears. I think a lot of people want a recording of a piano to not have any hints that it is artificial, in the same way we prefer that computer-generated effects in movies should be indetectable as being fake.
Maybe I shouldn't use the word "snobby", but many people rub me that way when they insist that you can never reproduce the sound of an acoustic piano with a synthesizer, but will resist any attempts at double blind tests, jumping through any hoop they can find to justify their beliefs. (people do the same thing with lots of things, expensive wines come to mind, as does modern art: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/quiz-...rt-and-art )
Here is another link to where I was exploring this on Quora: https://www.quora.com/When-recording-is...b-Cana-Mar
One thing he says is "a live instrument has a soul that you can feel, while sampled or synth seems to be empty". Obviously I don't agree with this, especially if we are talking about a recording.
I agree with your practical approach though. I can see why people would want a real acoustic piano for a performance (especially if the venue is small enough that you don't need to amplify it), but for recording it seems to make less and less sense as things like Pianoteq and others get so sophisticated.
but for recording it seems to make less and less sense as things like Pianoteq and others get so sophisticated
I was today listening to a recording by John o'Conor (great Irish classical pianist and student of Kempff). He has the reputation of a lovely, charming fellow (O'Conor that is) and yet I can see him bashing you senseless for such blasphemy. And Lord help you if you bled on the piano in the process.
But, yes, I do think we're rapidly approaching the point where a real piano is going to be harder to justify even at the highest level. That said, I can't imagine wanting to go to a concert of a great pianist and not being a tad disappointed to find my ticket price got me an evening watching someone play on a VPC1 through a speaker system - even if it was Pianoteq. Some things just have to be done a certain way to feel right.
I wonder : What will be the future of real grand pianos???
Let's supoose that in 10 years modelled pianos can't be distinguished from real piano sound recordings even by people with skilled ears. And let's supose they manage to create great transducer activated soundboards (in grand piano sizes) and also manage to create some transducers with metal resonators boards just for the more strident metalid sounds, being possible to create a grand piano body for a digital piano with astonishing quality, able to have the power and thewway of sound propagation very close to the way a true concert piano do.
What will happen to the real grand pianos?
One music teacher once said real pianos was going to extintion.
Anyway a small digital keyboard, cables, connected to sound speakers on the ground, would look a horrible abomination in a concert room for classical music.
Even for Rock'N' Roll. Every time, in the few ocasions Jerry Lee Lewis played a compact keyboard, for example, fans complained and he really looked inferior.
Digital pianos need a large body for such cases.
There are companies that are not afraid to make this comparison....
"I can see why people would want a real acoustic piano for a performance."
---------------------------
Speaking of such things, doesn't Elton John play a Yamaha piano on stage, but (as I read somewhere) the sound that the audience hears is actually a sampled sound from a Roland?
Similarly, Alicia Keys has famously had her Yamaha sampled so that she can play anything with MIDI output and what the audience hears is her own Yamaha C3 Neo.
The guy in the video was very honest and decent when he said they (the company he represents) wasn't trying to prove their digital was as good as the original grand, but they was just trying to see how well they were doing about the goal to produce a grand piano sound in a digital piano.
That's a fair point of view...
If we compare with old times, when a grand piano was almost a symbol of aristocracy, and compare today how many kids of medium social class can play piano with affordable models, we can see how technology have benefit music art.
About this video, despite fair comments of their intention, it's important to remamber that the difference from a real quality grand piano to a digital one (especially a sampled one) it's far more evident if we play both ouserlves than just watching a video comparison.
There are companies that are not afraid to make this comparison....
@robbrown, sjgcit, dazric, sandalholm, Beto-Music, Pianoteqenthusiast, Professor Leandro Duarte and dklein - thank you each for providing such enjoyable reading.
This topic is a classic. I think largely we all share similar views about it here. "I think Pianoteq is excellent!" - "No way! It's perfect!" ;0)
This would be a good thing to know if you have a recording studio and want to know whether it is worth your money to invest in an expensive piano, along with climate control and regular tuning.
I used to post more about how audio studios should all consider Pianoteq, because it's so easy to work with MIDI performances in post, for just one good reason other than less cost to keep a real one viable. As a VST, it's the only piano I wrangle these days. For people not knowing why exactly - the quick explanation might be, once you record a "real piano performance in the studio with microphones" to file (or 'tape'), you lose the ability to later deeply edit the sound, in other than conventional ways. Whereas, if you play a realistic piano (recording also the MIDI data), then you can, with Pianoteq audition any of the many other pianos and presets, using the same player's performance. I know most studio folks will understand - but those looking for pros and cons but trying to understand - maybe that's a data point hither to yet surfaced.
Having struggled for decades myself with poor digital pianos, Pianoteq is actually the first product to make me genuinely feel "OK, we're officially actually living in the dream piano future everyone was looking for". Unfortunately, the sense of it is something requiring a self-evident observation or demonstration.
There are many other software piano products and consumers might not understand what makes Pianoteq so valuable to me or others who record with it.
One very high up reason, is that with other software piano products, you can achieve very limited playability (as sandalholm alludes to) and limited options for altering the sound. A studio/engineer/producer type should easily grok how workable Piantoeq is, also how light it is to run, install, update etc. (the music industry is full of gigabytes of downloads and 3rd party 'locks' and weird custom config hassles - not so with Piaoteq - it's like opposite-land.. light, easy, quick, playable close to a real piano, each piano and preset usable out-of-the-box for its purpose and a whole lot of great real pianos and other instruments for something like 40% off, if you go straight to the Studio Bundle deal). I do think someone running an audio studio would benefit from getting beyond Youtube comparisons, and try it out.. it's how I decided.. the demos sounded good - but is it doable here? Turns out, yes. I would hate to be without it now because, trying to wedge some monolithic sample piano into everything was a pain - but it's a pleasure, and inspiring using Pianoteq by that comparison.
I'd probaly leave my last thought on it to be that, I'd be happy to see more comparisons, but to me, they would be just entertainment (so anyone doing those, maybe it's good to be aware that maybe if the bar is raised, your comparison video MIGHT be the best one on Youtube! because a lot of us have probably seen enough low grade ones).
I'd prefer a nicely done documentary style "Making Of" piece though, in some controlled conditions as dazric points out, and done maybe with a level of care and love for the piano (as in the Petrof video where Philippe explains the anechoic chambre etc). That would be informative whereas many comparison videos are more of a kind of circus, often more about driving eyeballs to a music store - Like and subscribe!
Pianoteq just opens up processes beyond a real piano (much quicker and better than other piano VSTi choices), for a studio situation. Passionate about that. Most studios probably have plenty of VST plugins of course but until they try out Pianoteq, they probably still have this idea in mind that a good piano VST takes up a rack and isn't good enough etc. Test videos by amateurs are fun but maybe not so much for people with a certain degree of experience.
I'm interested further in what sandalholm mentions in his post, in terms of listeners can often be talking about X or Y - but indeed, the extra dimension, the playing of the piano does factor in deeply!
For each separate genre_____
| Listening_______
| |
| Piano in room variant
| |
| Recorded piano variant
|____
Playing_________
|
Piano in room sound
|
Recorded piano soundThat's kind of a clear reason that no test is going to satisfy all.
Old man shouting at cloud paragraph..
Seeing comparisons using poor MIDI, wrong velocity settings etc. makes for annoyance rather than anything useful - just a music store making a 'name' and driving eyeballs to their local store - that's great and all but maybe the methods and the types of comments those things attract, is not always the best for the products they compare. In the olden days (I have to point these things out I feel, as it does feel society is losing out from the lack) music magazines would at least have some policy around make respectful demonstrations, attempt balance in criticism - the idea being, that a genuine comparison should not be an ambush kill-the-competition scam. Many editors and journalists were held to account by sponsors and corporations to play fair - and not be actively sniping certain products or company's product for kick-backs and so on. These days, where everyone is a publisher? Like and subscribe!! About as much care for the products, results and commenters, with few comments really enjoyable or sensible, many, if not most missing some point or other like, "Obviously it's A" and others saying "Obviously best is B".. then many baseless nuances emerge.. "Yeah but sensitivity wise, A sounds loudest" - and "I like how B is not loud" - some related but separate questions arise "Can my PC run A, it's made out of lawn mowers?" and "I read somewhere that B needs a space shuttle sound card to work properly" and "My PC runs louder than a vacuum cleaner, sucks and blows - that's why I only use my telephone" and then the drunken hall effect kicks in and viscous arguing begins.. "A sounds flat idiots" and "LOL B is like mono version toy" and "Clearly, you are all idiots". Kind of sadly funny but deflating.
Not many of these folk have insight to understand what they're not understanding (Dunning Kruger effect pounces to mind) - so in a general fit of 'not understanding anything sensibly' they load in on each other with attacks and ad hominem and anyone with half a grain of common sense blinks, slowly gulps and clicks away from it.
So, it is a kind of risky marketing strategy, on that level IMO. Which is why a nice documentary style piece might be a reasonable marketing venture. It may allow people who've been diappointed by extremely sketchy (face it) Youtube tests to see and perhaps be able to effortlessly learn and understand some things more clearly in a cool way.
Mostly, even from the POV of a consumer of entertainment, I'd be interested in experiencing side by sides made by people who know more about pianos and Pianoteq than myself. There's zero pull for me (other than train-wreck entertainment) seeing unskilled people try to test things, esp. pianos and Pianoteq, in any context.
But on the other hand, the exception to that rule so to speak, might be a fun test by non-piano experts certainly could be majorly entertaining and still have, gasp, viral sharability potential.
These go to 11 - Spinal Tap's Nigel Tufnel explains the band's amplifiers
@Beto-Music - I wish I had your eyesight! - but glad I don't at the same time heh - I say that, but I bought 'old tech' large screens, I too hate hyped extra high res 'crisp edge' etc displays.. maybe with not the same disdain but much prefer softer with better colour - filmic - possibly because I love cinema.. so my eyes enjoy a more analog experience, rather than what I agree can seem very broken, to me (too many processes in evidence, rather than 'reality', or a form of reality on screen). I'm not a Luddite about it but I'm not buying into it until it gets past making everything look like a computer game, to me.
I wonder : What will be the future of real grand pianos???
I love that thinking. Some part of me would like to see a great piano maker (Steingraeber) design some internal harp for such usage. The main thing would be replacing strings with a frame which responds to an excellent array of frequencies, like strings.
For critiques of this, the point may be lost upon them, but if you consider who such an real-world instrument could then theoretically take up and pronounce each and every piano and preset in Pianoteq and be as useful in a concert hall, as a studio or household.
Maybe that all still sounds futuristic or preposterous - but the world was never progressed by those, esp. 'with that attitude'. Also pointing to a lot of greats in music in the past, you could say the majority of the best of the best loved and basically now immortals, were often pushing things to change, be greater in some way etc.
If having Pianoteq in a studio can save money - well, imagine how much money a grand concert hall might save, if their only house piano needed no tuning (other than the Pianoteq tools - as requested per concert by the pianist) -
"I'm playing X and Y, will love to begin on an Pleyel in Well temperament, diapason 432, full rebuild please, then finish on the Steingraeber, please use my custom scala file for this if I can't provide an FXP in time"..
No moving costs, no trucks and bad backs or multiple microphone re-placement time cost - one body, many sounds, (or DI - Direct In - or mix of live and DI for FX - unlimited uses for live) so flexible - it almost seems strange if a major piano house is not already quite deep into committee on what possibilities could reasonably arise in the market. The sales of such (and patenting of new harps etc) could finance the keeping of existing stringed instruments alive also - as I would hope.. I never wish finality on such beautiful works as 'real' pianos.
"I can see why people would want a real acoustic piano for a performance."
---------------------------Speaking of such things, doesn't Elton John play a Yamaha piano on stage, but (as I read somewhere) the sound that the audience hears is actually a sampled sound from a Roland?
Similarly, Alicia Keys has famously had her Yamaha sampled so that she can play anything with MIDI output and what the audience hears is her own Yamaha C3 Neo.
Yeah absolutely, good point - depending on size of venue, a real piano is subject to mics, amps, P.A. a mixer, producers, art directors and so on in different combos. Those audiences are generally not interested in too much depth about "Is that piano real?" and in the back, nobody is going to hear the piano unless it's either mic'd or using something like Pianoteq with MIDI output. The show goes on and the audience enjoys.. A small venue or one which is traditionally acoustic or genre specific might not factor in the above at all.
I know of at least one musician who has been using MIDI for ages, a particular digital piano keyboard built into a smallish piano body - he said the audience took him more seriously, in his genre, when he sat at something which looked like a 'real piano' instead of a modern plastic keyboard on a flaky stand.
Like something I mentioned about working with MIDI in a studio - for sure it would be great for a performer (like those you mention) to be able to output MIDI at the same time.. there will be "those" shows where even a veteran might think "Oh, wow, I think I just played that better than before - why didn't I think of adding that dimension before.. I think it's worth hearing back, I want to get it right - I'm glad we capture this stuff for later - we could work with that on the upcoming retrospective album"... and other case scenarios.
I'm always seeing a lot of upside to working digitally with piano - but mostly because now we have Piantoeq. Sometimes, I'm playing using a modern grand, and decide "That's going to sound just right on the Graf.." 2 clicks and "Yes, I like that". Creativity boosted no matter what I'm doing.
There are companies that are not afraid to make this comparison
Thanks, I really like how that video presents the product - it's along the lines of my mention about preferring a good documentary style production (but at what cost), rather than a sometimes poorly and missing-the-point test. I'd say, it's not about 'fear' because these things are all over the internet - but 'cost'.
Notice, comments are "OFF" on that video - probably the opinions are split - as these videos tend to ask for opposing opinions, even where the CEO might say "We're not trying to see if we're as good or better, but let's see how we're going, where we're at".. no amount of priming with sensible notions like that may stop a terrible storm of outraged and angry folks from wading in with their instantly formed opinion, having never once thought about any of the minutia before - fun
Qexl ! tThank you so much for sharing your opinion, bringing your knowledge and ideas to this fantastic forum. You are always so helpful.
I think pianoteq could have some few more options about piano positions, and more than one piano sound being emulated together in the virtual work space, allowing things like that :
Piano legends Fats Domino, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, & Brian Auger, 1969
This challenge would turn Modartt's head 180 degrees.
;-)
@Pianoteqenthusiast - and you too! BTW, your statement here is probably all we need..
People can’t tell the difference although they claim they can”. And if my friend have the attitude, that a digital instrument can’t sound the same, I no longer discuss it with him. I’m just enjoy playing ptq :-)
It's true, we all just get on doing our thing and it's not always worth time or efforts to convince those who may be un-convinceable I always love reading what you're thinking!
I'll just scroll down a little to the next comm ...
Oh
@Beto, Beto.. Beto - LOL I laughed much too loud, in a great way As they say these days,
Thanks, I hate it! (well, you know I love it really)
Thought to bring these in here for ease of listening..
the audio and FXPs from the Pianoteq Workshops page - since they are really a sweet kind of real recorded pianos vs. a quick Pianoteq edit to hear - the workshops can quickly help a new user to get toward that sound they want (you can keep editing those FXPs available to download there to get even closer - it's a fun way to learn how to edit for various effects).
These are certainly not the limit of what can be done - but a great tutorial way of getting to understand how to make tweaks in Pianoteq to get close to a sound of a given piano recording - making, in effect, Pianoteq more true to those recordings.
Workshop 1 a Jazz type of recorded piano sound
The jazz Pianoteq workshop FXP
Workshop 2 a Classical recorded piano sound
The classical Pianoteq workshop FXP
Workshop 3 a famous standard recorded piano sound
The Standard Pianoteq Workshop FXP
[Edits to fix urls and a little context]
This video could be used as a anti-drug add in sound engineering classes.
It's interesting how he uses the very same logic of Bugs Bunny:
It feels like pianoteq have more punch for strident sounds. Something like that.
Workshop 1 a Jazz type of recorded piano sound
The jazz Pianoteq workshop FXP
Workshop 2 a Classical recorded piano sound
The classical Pianoteq workshop FXP
Workshop 3 a famous standard recorded piano sound
The Standard Pianoteq Workshop FXP
[Edits to fix urls and a little context]
It feels like pianoteq have more punch for strident sounds.
Yeah, in a lot of ways Pianoteq is close to the recordings and it's really something to be able to say "I'd like to see if I can get it like this.." and get really close to it. You can work those FXPs more to add or subtract things about them - or use in a DAW and add some analog grit.
Now, of course, I'm just stretching for an excuse to post another quirky short video and this springs to mind - it reminds me of what other piano software makes me feel when I play them now.
Maybe harsh - but it's kind of true - they look the part but when I play the other software pianos, I hear a wrong voice.
Compared, Pianoteq gives me as much real piano as I can work with. Always feel everything falling short with other software pianos. They make me want to feel "Ok, looking forward to playing this" but then it's like the roar in the video.