I know it's common for people to bring up the 'plastic' sound, and I become more self-conscious because of it. What do you do to change this (besides telling those people to "- off")? The second option usually works, I just don't want to have to each and every time still.
Well, trilokmeia9, you keep an opened mind. That’ll do!
Any VST as a technology very possibly does still have certain flaws. Bare in mind, an acoustic piano does also.
I admit that PIANOTEQ can often sound MIDI, just as any other software. However, one way to get around that is advantageous that samples always lack. It is the ability of modeled instruments and thusly the inability of the samples to utilize effectively high resolution data from MIDI.
It’s extremely effective when you listen closely to a high resolution MIDI recording and compare it to the inherent limitations of samples or even compare it to some highly regarded acoustic piano recordings.
Now my experience is the presets by and of themselves alone though maybe good sounding to my ears, they sometimes require outside effects added to compare to specific acoustic recordings.
I’ve one high resolution MIDI XP recording that might highlight effectively outside effects uses: Etude Tableau Op. 39 No. 5, a Pre and Postproduction Production.
Another is coming. Please let me know soon after I post it, if that should sound plasticky to you. Will post perhaps today!
Yes, some presets are a good starting point, a decent controller too. You might see a video from Phil Best on YT, very instructive.
Ed : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4SEgi5pADA
Yes, some presets are a good starting point, a decent controller too. You might see a video from Phil Best on YT, very instructive.
For those interested, he's playing on a Roland HP605 (PHA50 action) with a pair of M-Audio BX8 monitors:
https://philbestmusic.com/piano/
Hey trilokmeia9,
I think everyone likes different sounds. Some things that I figured out that work for me are:
- I adjusted the velocity curve to my keyboard.
- I shortened the damping duration (a little bit higher in the low register) to about ~54, this feels better for me when playing staccato notes. (Adjust the release velocity curve also)
- decrease the duplex and sympathetic resonance
- increase the volume of the dampers. I don't know if that is true but I think increasing the damper noise changes the attack sound of each note with a damper. I compared the loudness with the pedal noise of a real grand while sitting in front of it and made it the same volume. Also increasing the other noises.
- I increase the unison detuning a little bit
- play around with various mic placements. I have routed every mic output to a channel in the DAW and tried out settings as explained in this Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11lPSt-0ls
- I use external reverb for more control
This works for me...
High all,
I don't second the opinion that PTQ has a 'plastic' sound.
In my experience, PTQ sounds a lot more realistic than the sampled piano's that I tested (demos).
Good USB-soundcard and decent loudspeakers will help.
Also the placement of the speakers changes a lot about the sound (I experienced bad quality when the speakers were pointed to me directly).
Good luck!
Until sometime recently prior to the release of PIANOTEQ v.6.7, end users adamantly complained about there being a lack of wood in the software produced piano sounds they had gotten. Some of them even had gone so far as to suggest and invent extremely elaborate schemes they’d each conceived only to offer up some of their own possible solutions. Which now were in an agreed upon user wide effort (that was) to alleviate such a bewildering problem as no physical wood tone in physical modeling, a piano instrument then before them.
I remember one of the suggestions was called a knock file. That certainly I myself was hardly going to knock. That like a reverb impulse response a user was to load into the software and later down a workstation (DAW) chain presumably add his own DAW or outside regular reverb.
Obviously, people at MODARTT read into the complaints and were hard at work afterwards to provide more of a PIANOTEQ solution to do away, once and for all, with no wood or the scarcity sounding in physical modeling of physically wood pianos. Lastly via the recent release of PIANOTEQ v.6.7, MODARTT had came up with its own remedy to the situation of end users having to resort to their DAWs just to get an authentic wood sound out of its software.
Though end users got the update to PIANOTEQ v.6.7.3, I suspect many like me have yet to get totally up to speed on the aspects of resonance equalization, how we can apply it to ultimately have thoroughly immersed ourselves within wood sounding tones, distinctly in our recordings.
If PIANOTEQ somehow still sounds plasticky to you, well my suggestion now is you acquaint yourself with the uses and applications of its resonance equalization.
Personally, I’m continually experiencing my own learning curve and numerous ways one can bring out the tones, those physical wood might make within a piano. Those that are probably directly opposite the sounds plastic makes.
Here’s my latest effort from me to explore the likelihood of wood —opposed to plastic— sounding vibrantly even robustly out of a v.6.7.3 preset:
https://forum.modartt.com/file/14733a6x
Granted outside plugins were added to it. Which might have helped me to bring out the tones more.
Please, have a listen anyway at my thread: Piano Sonata Op. 1, III. Choral et Variations (pre & post production).
Do let me know if you’re at all able to discern any trace of plastics, er vinyl even!
Hey trilokmeia9,
I think everyone likes different sounds. Some things that I figured out that work for me are:
[...]
- play around with various mic placements. I have routed every mic output to a channel in the DAW and tried out settings as explained in this Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11lPSt-0ls
[...]This works for me...
Thank you for this post and YT link.
About that YT link: have you copied the placement of the microphones?
I have absolutely no experience nor knowledge about microphones. And the mics Josh Giunta uses are not (exactly) the same as we have in PTQ. Thus, I couldn't reproduce his interesting mic-placement.
Do you have a mic-preset based on Giuntas placement and are you willing to share it with us? I'd really like to try this out.
And / or: does some information exist about the different types of mics that we can choose of in PTQ?
Thanks.
To me it sounds a lot better when I use an external reverb. When I use PTQ as a plugin in my DAW (I use Logic) I turn off the delay and the reverb in PTQ and just use one of the ones that come with Logic.
Have to say sounds possible out of ChromaVerb are just mind blowing!
Now let me extend a belated welcome to this forum, benitoanders.
I just got a surprise as I listened to the recording at your previous post. As I said earlier, with its nuances it’s believable, just as believable as any studio sounding recording.
Yes, ChromaVerb is very nice.
I came across a very interesting article discussing several types of microphones (like the Neumann U87, DPA 4000 series, and the C414, which are present in PTQ).
It also discusses the advantages of using ribbon or condenser mics over dynamics, and the advantages of omnidirectional over cardioid.
And also the placement of the microphones is discussed in some extent.
Read the article yourself: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/piano-recording
To me it sounds a lot better when I use an external reverb. When I use PTQ as a plugin in my DAW (I use Logic) I turn off the delay and the reverb in PTQ and just use one of the ones that come with Logic.
Yes, agreed. I use Lexicon PCM Native on one machine and Relab LX480 on another. Both improve PT enormously compared to the in-built reverb, to my ears. Reverb is a parameter which I adjust all the time, according to what I'm playing. Sometimes I use quite a lot and then the quality of the effect is particularly important. But I find the PT in-built reverb changes the quality of the sound somehow, even at low levels, and I don't like it. I think it would be a huge advantage if PT standalone had a VST (etc) hosting facility so we could load reverb and other (eg eq) plugins. I.
If you’re on a Mac, Hijack software as an audio router might allow you to add reverb and other effects to PIANOTEQ output more conveniently and way much faster than Logic X.
You get it from Rogue Amoeba Software Inc.:https://rogueamoeba.com/audiohijack/. A demo is available as a free download.
I came across a very interesting article discussing several types of microphones (like the Neumann U87, DPA 4000 series, and the C414, which are present in PTQ).
It also discusses the advantages of using ribbon or condenser mics over dynamics, and the advantages of omnidirectional over cardioid.
And also the placement of the microphones is discussed in some extent.Read the article yourself: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/piano-recording
thats a very good issue in that if you are using real mics on a piano there are a few things one has to lookout for. I have miced a good many pianos in my day at the studio and had several different mics to play with.
on of my favorites was the fostex rp88 which was a bidirectional. these are very similar to condenser but with a dynamic methodology. The RP88 has a very large diaphragm similar to Neumann' but you dont need a high end pre amp to get the noise level down. The RP88 also has the diaphragm totally surrounded by a strong and evenly spread magnetic field which causes the diaphragm to acted like a ridged piston. the same is true with condenser but they use 48 volt electric field to do that. but the nice thing about bidirectional are recording the room ambient using the same mic. but the secret is location, location, location of the mic. having a long mic boon will help
PZM mics offer some good sounds as well especially on open grands where you can tape them up on the lid.
Sound fields also do great for capturing both the piano and ambiance together. how does this reflect in using pianoteq - well you would have to try to copy this virtually . one thing I do note is that I would rather use another convolution reverb than what pianoteq has at the moment. and with convolution reverbs you have to be careful with the impulse you feed it. the adage garbage in garbage out comes into play. getting a good impulse of the room you want to emulate can be the most challenging aspect.
one thing about pianoteq is the sustain pedal ambients that sounds quite good but still isn't quite perfect. but compared to any sampled piano, it just has that edge. Kurzweil in their k2500/k2600 had a patch that emulated that sustain, but it took up all the dsp it had to make it plausible. And the other is the grunts, farts and creaking of the stool that is missing from the recording. Will Keith Garrett ever use one - I wish he did, not that I dont like is grunts - sometimes but it can be quite a distraction.