Newbie advice for dull mid register

As I said the four EQs all are working as they should but all of them influence the spectrum of all keys, e.g. to get a more bright sound I can push frequencies around 3,5kHz, but then I push them for all registers and the bass becomes too bright.

Actually I allready tried that too. It only changes the volume of the keys individually, not their tonal quality. I would need to lower the volume at the middle register and then individually push that keys at the velocity curve to get the more brilliant sound.
I guess with PRO I would increase hammer hardness just for the middle register, like it usually is on real pianos which haven't been intoned for a long time. It is common that a piano ir regulary tuned, sometimes regulated but only seldome intoned. The condition slider seems to change tuning, unison width and the dampers more prominent than other effects.
Unfortunately I can't check if individual hammer hardness gives me the desired result with the demo version.

Thanks for the hint, I have tried now. It is the same like all other moethods, it influences the sound of all registers equally.
For me it turnes out is either the mid register to soft or the bass to hard.

You have (oops) just left.

Now I make a different argument entirely!

Whenever I record (to my own satisfaction of course) many of my equalization adjustments result in a complete necessity (that is) if ever I am to diminish the effects from some unwanted resonances.  Those which are undesirable.  They seem just that as they can often prevent me from my having a genuinely miked piano sound somehow similar to some very real recordings of others, made particularly by the professionals.

Just stay positive, as long as you realize the results you’re after are attainable out of PIANOTEQ, and once you become familiar with it.

Wow hanysz, that seems like a good solution. I'll try it later.

Heya Cogito,

hope this helps - the following is not correct:

The main Equalizer only alters the fundamental within the range raised or lowered.. so should be possible to raise your midrange to taste with it.. might take some headscratching - but do stick with it..

In the main Equalizer (the large button lower right, not the EQ3 parametric ones in the Effects section);

you can adjust this anywhere and it won't affect notes outside the range you adjust per se (as will the spectrum profile).

I think try copy/pasting this into that Equalizer pane and look at how it's just lifting some mid-range notes (pushed too far, so you can see & hear it properly).

Equalizer = [475, 595, 840, 890; 0, +4.0, +5.0, 0]

To work on changes and tonal shaping, this is the way to begin IMO. Double-clicking to add or subtract control points, move the dots (or edit exact numbers by right-clicking the dots).

This main Equalizer pre-processes fundamental overtone qualities before the model gets computed by the engine (or effects) or is radiated/output and you can gear your unique piano for many purposes with it. I think of it as a virtual chisel on the cabinet panel, making it thinner/thicker to alter ultimately what can radiate out.

Your query seems to suggest that you could raise a small plane of midrange tones to your liking using as few or as many dots, flat lines or dips/peaks as needed (along with other shaping you may have done) and probably little by little is best.

Final shaping with other EQ3 tools and the spectrum profile might also help - but these are kind of good to dive into after I'd recommend. Also pay close attention to the Q factor setting in the parametric EQ3 effects - you can raise or lower it to subtly enhance the width of range to left/right of the respective dots in there.

Just a note too, the manual has some explanation about this (section 3.5 iirc) - for example it shows raising bass with it, and explains how that won't alter timber of notes outside the raised bass.

I'd play a busy MIDI file (like Rachmaninoff Moment Musiceaux with lots of continuous midrange notes.. or a repeating arpeggio you pre-record, including the notes you want to alter and some below and above - to hear how your main EQ changes go.. it's seamless that way and easier than stopping, playing while listening, stopping, tweaking EQ, stopping that, playing again over and over etc.)

Food for thought - hoping it helps get you along the road. Cheers.

Quexl, thanks for the input. But I think you're not correct with how the main EQ is working.
In deed it is affecting the spectrum of all notes.
If I push a frequency in the main EQ, I'm pushing this frequency in all notes resulting in a different spectrum. The EQ3 gets applied to the complete generated sound (wherever it sits in the signal chain) but the main EQ gets applied to each individual note during synthesis. If I push a frequency in EQ3, the result will be that all keys which produce that frequency will be louder. With the main EQ the volume of the key gets normalised, i.e. the volume of the individual key depends on velocity and noch on the tonal structure.
What you are describing is more or less the individual note volume adjustment.

Section 13.5.  You can adjust the bass in isolation because they are the lowest notes!  If you raise frequencies below 100 Hz, middle and high register notes don't contain those frequencies so they won't be affected.  But if you change the EQ for higher frequencies, you'll be changing the sound in all registers.

Thanks tmyoung,
I guess you are referring here to the individual note per note spectrum profile edit, which is only available with the PRO version.
Unfortunately the PRO version ist out of reach for me.

That is exactly what I am doing now the last few days. Things got much better after I dropped the binaural method, although it should be the most realistic in theory, I guess that's a point where theory and practice differ. Now I push mics thru the virtual room, sometimes in microscopic distances. I experiment with the different mics and proximity effect and so on.
I have found kind of a setup which sounds good for me with two C414-cardio, whereas one is really close to the mid register hammers.
I often switch between the A and B presets to compare intermediate results and keep the better one.
With that method I have found a mic placement where I feel the balance between the mids and the bass is ok. Attack sounds good and natural from bottom to top (to my taste). Now I still have to refine it and still the mid register sounds a little bit dull in the decay phase.

Exactly, without my modifications I like the B more right because of that. And I'm not a producer, I use it as my practice instrument. So The B sounds more familiar for practice in a simulated small room. For me it is not realistic to have the sound of a large instrument in a large hall while practicing the same bars over and over at my living room. On the other hand the bass of the D is so much better. So I'm not 100% decided yet but tend to the D which I made a little brighter and lighter.

Overall I have to say the possibilities you get with Pianoteq are huge and this is really its strongest and its weakest point at the same time. You can do so many things, but you don't get a good result out of the box. At least that's my feeling.
And I guess I'm beyond the point of no return. The first few days I tried Pianoteq it sounded horrible and I couldn't understand the buzz but now it allready sounds better than my old sampled instrument in most aspects and I hope I'll get to the finish line soon. Playing Pianoteq really is more fun because of its great responsiveness.

Hopefully this helps..

I do get where you're coming from - but I hadn't suggested anything about the volume normalizing aspect - that is separate (which is a good part of that Equalizer too though).

Certainly if you push large masses around in any tool, it will all sound hideous.

Here's the item I was referring to, worth reading in the manual (it has a graphic showing the lines) - it's about the overtones - I did mention it may take some head-scratching..

From

"13.5 Tutorial 5: difference between spectrum profile and equalizer"

the part in reference to the Equalizer - where a rise in bass is presented:

Note, it's about overtones and "almost unchanged" is what I'm hoping you'll find - esp. with small bumps in the mids.

Techinically I'm sure there's something rather than exactly nothing.. but with LOW movements along this line - we're highly unlikely to upset too much surrounding our edits.  Many of my examples are like cartoons, big, pushed too much, so you can clearly see or hear what I'm talking about - but here's an example bump which is more like I'd recommend trying out..

Equalizer = [415, 470, 550; 0, +0.5, 0]

That kind of bump won't unduly overrun all the other notes - give it a try and maybe add others like it.. remembering the "water-line" is balanced in the tool like you pointed out - so don't worry about getting too wet you can always go back to default.

Don't overlook as others mentioned the new Res EQ and Res Duration elements also in there to additionally add or subtract resonance of course. This can help fatten mids, if you raise some EQ of the resonant component there.. it will ring unrelated to the main EQ. Fabulous IMO.

When I A/B test the same default preset with only that bump in B, it's a clear and reasonable boost in mids in my system - not gargantuan - subtle - but if you don't want subtle, you can instigate a bump in EQ3 in the range with an appropriate Q factor.

Of course though, a tidal wave Q factor will break the whole range - but small sharp Q will affect little BUT that pointy spot.

Hoping that's making clear what I was trying to convey.

There's some good advice from everyone here above and throughout the forum to help - if you're OK with the fact that these things can be time consuming, counter-intuitive at times and with actually infinite relevant answers

[haven't had time to go over others' replies yet - but looks like lots of excellent advice!] Cheers.

[Edit to add below]

@hanysz, thank you for pointing that out - it's a good point. In my use of the Equalizer, bumps and small notches can be close to lossless or non-additive (esp. when the user doesn't have Pro note-edit solutions). It's not as perfect as Pro note-edit but I find a mix of this and some adversarial use of EQ3 (similar ranges opposing at same/similar frequency ranges results in some good sonics).

Always suggest anyone to persevere, even with Standard there is much control - even if not as down to the note like in Pro.

There's nothing wrong with trying from scratch too if it seems we've hemmed ourselves in with a disagreeable midrange or some other proposition.

Great news Cogito.

Fresh ears and some perseverance and you'll find your sound.

Try a right-click on "Unison width" handle - that reveals the "Unison balance" tool - I find + or - around 0.2 really useful as starting points.

That balance I think of as secondary to width but I'll usually try to remember to adjust it each time I alter width. (sometimes, I'll also try with and without, or raise/lower delay in Effects section at this time too, if it's activated - and other aspects of course, like Direct sound duration and so on).

For example, Unison balance can make nearly satisfactory unison less 'swimming' whilst more realistic, without inducing even marginal tuning issues (like "Condition" slider might) - or enhance body - there's no right or wrong but a matter of trial and error to our personal tastes.

Ver 7 will no doubt address many things we all like to see improved - from engine through all instruments. The recent update to strings (in Karsten collection so far) is no-doubt coming to all pianos - it's going to be wildly improved IMO.

Esp. agree with what you say here..

It's good to appreciate that early on. Over time we realize that the defaults for many items are so very rational and our sweetening of things can be way more subtle than we might begin with - I am glad to break bounds of the settings to brute some discoveries - but going back to defaults, esp. with fresh ears is really key to getting a good preset edits we can enjoy over a long time-frame.

Really glad you're making headway.

It's not a binaural effekt, it is two microphones in an artificial head. So actually they should give the best and most authentic sound for listening with headphones. Unfortunately they either don't or I just don't like that sound.

That wasn't the solution. Inverting the polarity only makes sense when placing some mics under the soundboard and some above.
I used a RTA to find exactly the ringing frequency and reduced only that one in the main EQ. I don't knwo why it is there, one can even hear it loud at the factory presets of the Steinway D. It's at 2960Hz.

My experiments now have brought me to a setup with three mics, one cardio at the left side of the music stand one fig-8 at the right side and an additional fig-8 at the very top corner of the lid for some more brilliance.
I'm still not where I want. For the players position I still have a very poor stereo impression, although much better than with the binaural mode. Yes, I've seen the stereo width slider.
And although the mid register sounds much better than at my first tries, it still is too dull. Also I find that the action noises are too loud at the treble and getting more soft the lower you get and that isn't only a masking effect.
I guess to bring this any further I'd have to output all mics separately and EQ them individually later.
Worst of all I found out, that inside the audio host I run into CPU performance problems which I didn't had with the standalone version.

No, I also think that from a marketing point of view the three products are well thought out. I was hoping for a model improvement which doesn't have such unwanted resonances.

Both, of course. I started to play with Pianoteq and at first I was very disapointed. However I've read what I could find in this forum and think I've made some progres. Then I came to a point where I needed help, so I asked and I got many very helpful answers. I tried all of your suggestions. The more I play with Pianoteq, the more I get it to where I want. But also the more I play with Pianoteq, the more I find some things I don't want. So I pass them on as a feedback. Also I tell what I've done so far, so maybe it is helpful for some other people later.
Many times I've read that there are Pianoteq lovers and haters and nothing in between. I'm in between. I love how Pianoteq feels, I love how Pianoteq reacts, but I'm still not happy with the sound. I've spent an hour every day to optimize the sound and I'm thankful for all your ideas. I still wish I get it to the point where I can say: yes, I want to hear this a few hours every day.

There is no volume velocity curve, but the dynamics lets you control the volume variation between ppp and fff. And of course the velocity curve itself acts on the volume, though on the timbre too.

Volume per se can be edited note per note in Pro and Standard: simply double click on the volume slider.

That's a very good tip. I tried it and it makes the sound more realistic for average playing, only staccato is now worse. I guess I'll have to upgrade my trusty keyboard if I stick with Pianoteq.

I also switched off the limiter as suggested in another thread and although I couldn't experience bad noise from the limiter before, it also adds a little realism for playing. The limiter (or a separate compressor) is essential for mixing/recording, but just for me playing it feels better without.

As I said some posts above, very early I discovered the huge influence of the velocity curve on the whole instrument. I had found a curve, with which I played now for over one week. But whatever I did, I couldn't come to good sounding mid register. So today I went a few steps back and started over with a new (more loud) velocity curve.
Immediately the mid register sounds much better, the high register doesn't sound too bad and I can adjust it.
Now only the bass is too sharp, too percussive.
Back to the beginning, I can get nice mids and a nice bass, but not both at the same time. But maybe I have more luck adjusting the bass, than I had with the middle.

Can the velocity curve be adjusted on a note-by-note basis in pro? Maybe that would make a good feature request. For ease of use I'd say a per note velocity correction curve would be a good thing, maybe apply some kind of power-law curve to "bend" the velocity curve for each note individually.

Spectrum, yes.  Notes, no.  If you apply EQ to high frequencies, it will affect the timbre of mid range and low notes as well, because it's affecting the overtones of those notes.  It only takes a minute to adjust the EQ and hear the difference, the effect is pretty obvious if you make some big adjustments.

No, I haven't.
For sure I can eq some low frequencies and this will affect only bass notes beacause all other notes don't have bass frequencies. But if I eq high frequencies this will affect all notes because all notes have some high spectrum.

Maybe I just don't get you because english is not my native language, but I think you're mixing some things up.
EQUALIZER will act on the spectrum of a note played, the frequencies influenced by the EQ are unrelated to the note's pitch.
EQ3 will act on the spectrum of the whole instrument according to where it sits in the signal chain even on the reverb.
Overtones will act on the spectrum of a note too, the frequency influencd by the overtones are always related to the note's pitch (fundamental).
Overtones and EQ cannot compensate each other except for one specific note.

By the way a "dull" sound usually is lacking some higher frequencies, but the problem goes beyond only frequencies. The attack of a sound is also very important.

Well, I guess I'm very lucky that not many people did come to the same conclusion so far.

My conclusion at this point is somewhat different. I think either I still haven't found the optimum settings to make Pianoteq Standard sound like I want or I might just need Pro for it. And even if it already is a good product, there are always possibilities for enhancements in functionality and sound, which doesn't mean it is faulty. If a sample library doesn't have unacorda samples, it's not faulty either, it's just lacking unacorda samples.
A big thank you to all the people who helped me with their tips and tricks in setting up Pianoteq so far.