i don't know if this is in the cards for a future version of Pianoteq, but being able to load a VST FX would be very nice from a sound design perspective.
yes, this can be done in a DAW and VST hosts, but being able to do that from inside Pianoteq would be more convenient, imo.
i don't always feel like going 'inside' a DAW just to tickle the keys and look for inspiration.
That's a great suggestion - I like the idea!
I like the idea too, if we take compatibility issues out of the equation. However..
I imagine they might regret ending up being responsible for troubleshooting all the 3rd party plugin compatibility issues. That would be no fun at all.
So at risk of sounding like stuck record I suggest anyone who would wants this takes a look at Reaper, it's so very fast and lightweight. It can also be configured for live performance.
It loads as quickly as Pianoteq standalone. It's also only a few megabytes.
You can create track templates loaded with FX that you can return to with a click of the mouse.
I like the idea too, if we take compatibility issues out of the equation. However..
I imagine they might regret ending up being responsible for troubleshooting all the 3rd party plugin compatibility issues. That would be no fun at all.So at risk of sounding like stuck record I suggest anyone who would wants this takes a look at Reaper, it's so very fast and lightweight. It can also be configured for live performance.
It loads as quickly as Pianoteq standalone. It's also only a few megabytes.
You can create track templates loaded with FX that you can return to with a click of the mouse.
I tried Reaper. If you are into that kind of stuff it's certainly great, given that many people like you wholeheartedly recommend it.
HOWEVER, for someone who wants just to play piano and not mess us with stuff that sound engineers do, I strongly suggest to stay away from it. It's a lot of time and a lot of effort from the user perspective.
To make a comparison with the acoustic piano, image you want to play the piano, and maybe have the instrument voiced a bit darker (or brighter). Instead of a technician coming and do the job for you (ideal) or somebody giving you the instructions and the tools for the job (not ideal, but doable), you are just given a box with all the parts of a new piano, completely disassembled, all single keys and all single parts of the action for that key, and all individual strings that you need to attach (and you have no idea how many strings per key and in what order) and only very vague instructions. Well, great if you are into that, but, not so much if you simply wanted to play music and slightly change the sound, as in this example.
In fact, I have to praise PTQ in that it is probably the best virtual instrument from the player point of view, when most of the others tend to be for sound engineers. It would be fantastic if they could add a bit of functionality (e.g. the additional reverbs and the like) while keeping (or maybe even increasing) its simplicity of use. If allowing third party stuff is as hard as you say, honestly I would appreciate if Modartt itself sold additional things (like they do with instrument packs) covering better effects than they currently have included at the moment: e.g. EQ with more bands, etc. so not to deal with compatibility issues and getting additional revenue from their work
i think it depends on what would be easier for Moddart: design new effects or implement VST FX loading.
and that is without even considering if they want to go down those routes in the first place.
in any case, i just tried Pianoteq with the free Supermassive reverb.
that sounds just wonderful ! : )
I tried Reaper. If you are into that kind of stuff it's certainly great, given that many people like you wholeheartedly recommend it.
HOWEVER, for someone who wants just to play piano and not mess us with stuff that sound engineers do, I strongly suggest to stay away from it. It's a lot of time and a lot of effort from the user perspective.
To make a comparison with the acoustic piano, image you want to play the piano, and maybe have the instrument voiced a bit darker (or brighter). Instead of a technician coming and do the job for you (ideal) or somebody giving you the instructions and the tools for the job (not ideal, but doable), you are just given a box with all the parts of a new piano, completely disassembled, all single keys and all single parts of the action for that key, and all individual strings that you need to attach (and you have no idea how many strings per key and in what order) and only very vague instructions. Well, great if you are into that, but, not so much if you simply wanted to play music and slightly change the sound, as in this example.
In fact, I have to praise PTQ in that it is probably the best virtual instrument from the player point of view, when most of the others tend to be for sound engineers. It would be fantastic if they could add a bit of functionality (e.g. the additional reverbs and the like) while keeping (or maybe even increasing) its simplicity of use. If allowing third party stuff is as hard as you say, honestly I would appreciate if Modartt itself sold additional things (like they do with instrument packs) covering better effects than they currently have included at the moment: e.g. EQ with more bands, etc. so not to deal with compatibility issues and getting additional revenue from their work
I get your point, however it's a little like assuming that someone given a pencil, and paper would have to produce a complex technical engineering diagram with it, when they could just draw a stick man with a smiley face.
I am sure plenty of older folks even find the possibilities within Stage a little overwhelming at first.
Certainly creating a few templates for Pianoteq and a few FX in Reaper is far more simplistic than fully tuning a preset within Standard and definitely Pro.
Pianoteq can do simple or overwhelming like Reaper.
Using Pianoteq can be as simple as loading up a preset and playing. Reaper can also be only slightly more complex if loading a few FX automatically with a Pianoteq track template was all you wanted from it.
Obviously as a DAW Reaper is capable of being vastly more complex if needs be.
Who buys FX plugins for themselves but doesn't have a DAW anyway?
Understanding and getting the most from the likes of compressors, EQ and advanced reverb plugins is really for DAW users anyway.
Every OS has programs that are dedicated VST/instrument hosts: Mac has MainStage, Windows has Cantibile, Linux has Carla. I sure there are others. These are specifically designed for live performance and seem like a better choice than a DAW.
Every OS has programs that are dedicated VST/instrument hosts: Mac has MainStage, Windows has Cantibile, Linux has Carla. I sure there are others. These are specifically designed for live performance and seem like a better choice than a DAW.
Carla actually works on Mac and Windows too. I have not tried MainStage and Cantabile, but I have extensively tried Carla. Carla might be simpler than Reaper (*), but it is definitely made for the sound engineer, not for a piano player. Heck, even Carla's GUI looks like one of those racks that the sound engineers use in concerts!! Most pianists would not have seen one in their life and would wonder what those vertical bars with circles are for...
My problem is not live performance vs MIDI replay. My problem is sound engineer vs piano player. None of these things are easy to use for a piano player like pianoteq is. Yes, as Key Fumbler said pianoteq can get pretty complicated to use too, BUT all its terms and GUI are something that piano players should have at least heard about, if not outright discussed with their piano technician (if they ever had an acoustic piano and a technician serving it). Even if they didn't, you can try random stuff in pianoteq and hear how the sound changes, if at all, then undo and try another thing. Or even simply do nothing and play one of the many presets for the instruments you purchased. It works and plays a piano sound "out of the box" with minimal and sometimes even no configuration at all.
On the other hand, with DAWs and with dedicated VST/instrument hosts (at least the ones I tried), even getting the simple first sound out takes hours of banging your head on the keyboard (ask me how I know it). Everything is so obscure, varied and buried deep into incomprehensible menus. I am sure they made these things so for a reason, but that reason I assure you is not to make the life of the average piano player any easier.
Who buys FX plugins for themselves but doesn't have a DAW anyway?
Well, that might be a good objection for the OP, but my point of view is slightly different. Of course I don't buy FX plugins! However I think (and I might be wrong) that they would improve pianoteq sound. If not, one would ask, why anybody would buy a FX plug in when pianoteq already provides plenty of effects? As such, I initially thought the OP idea was good, but then I suggested that instead pianoteq would made their own proprietary effects, like they do for instrument packs. That would remove them from the burden of supporting third party things (which as you said could be a pain) and provide them added revenue (obviously for additional development work). Not sure it makes sense from a business perspective, but if they could make additional effects, better than the ones they already provide, that would be welcome.
Now, somebody with more sound engineering abilities than I should say what these "missing" effects are and how are they different than what we have already. How is "Supermassive Reverb" (just to quote one that was mentioned before) better than taking the internal pianoteq reverb, putting a huge room size and duration?
How about Valhalla which is also often quoted as the best-of-the-best?
(*): I am not sure about that, since I tried Reaper with the guidance of an expert friend, whereas I tried Carla on my own, so it felt more difficult to me
Some interesting points of view here. On balance it probably would be better for Modartt to develop and improve their own on-board fx rather than taking on 3rd-party VSTs.
For the record, I do use Reaper for recording and editing, and it's great - but one thing you don't get with Reaper is the 'always on' MIDI recording that you have in Pianoteq standalone. It all depends on your needs, of course, but I do find that feature extremely useful.
Plugins for DAWs are for global application. You can apply FX across multiple tracks, or all of them.
The effects in Pianoteq are good anyway, variety being the spice of life though..
That said concentrating too much on that endless FX plugin stuff can be a creativity quagmire. You can end up focussing on that more than making music - not that that would be a concern for Pianoteq standalone.
Supermassive doesn't sound realistic, and it's not meant to. It's designed to be used creatively.
One of the problems when discussing complexity and DAWs some people use incredibly complex scripts with Reaper. It doesn't have to be used that way.
Hosting plugins in a plugin is a compatibility can of worms. Especially in these times where there's a shift towards ARM CPUs and so on...
It would definitely increase support burden a lot ("why isn't plugin X working in Pianoteq?"), but more important than that, it would make exchanging presets trickier since one would need to make sure the same plugin and the same version of the plugin are installed for the exchange to work out.
It's not worth it. Use a dedicated live host for this sort of stuff, as mentioned before.
but one thing you don't get with Reaper is the 'always on' MIDI recording that you have in Pianoteq standalone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haAd1jIbOdg
Very useful video about Retrospective Record, will definitely use that sometimes. But it's not quite the same as Pianoteq standalone's background recording, because you have to remember to set it up!
i suggest to everybody who wants to combine Pianoteq with some additional FX to look at Gigperformer4 ! really
Moddart should focus on sound synthesis in my opinion.
while the team behind Gigperformer - btw. both guys behind GP also beeing gigging musicians - is doing a fabulous job on their own.
Gigperformer runs *extremly* stable !
and is totally optimised for smallest latencys !
No developer who would want to add host capabilitys can know what plugins the user base would finally wants to load.
Moddart would open a can of worms.
I´d not ask them to do so.......since the perfect plugin Host exists allready.
Better ask them to create other sound palettes, ....other instruments..........things in the vein of chromaphone3 for example.
Or add real time "sound manipulation" capabilitys to PT.
Better ask them to create other sound palettes, ....other instruments..........things in the vein of chromaphone3 for example.
Or add real time "sound manipulation" capabilitys to PT.
Yes a Timpani for example
That would definitely add to the price.
For guitar, I have a basic session set up for tone testing and noodling. That's what I'd recommend. For all intents and purposes, it'd be like opening Pianoteq, and in your case some sound design VSTs already in place.
I loved this idea. I use Reaper, but so often, just want to open up Pianoteq as standalone. When I run it in Reaper, I'm inevitably drawn to open up other instruments, and before I know it, it's no longer about the piano, which is why I often run the standalone.
From the expert advice here, it sounds like it may be too tricky.
However, maybe what could be looked at is more variety in the FX side of things in Pianoteq. Different kinds of EQs, compressors, delays, reverbs (I know there's a good dashing of reverbs already, but the way Pianoteq runs the reverbs seems to be heavily linked to the mics if I'm not mistaken?). Often, I want to 'place' the piano in the sound stage, in a certain way, and I find I cannot achieve what I want in Pianoteq alone where I can in Reaper.
One thing I'd love to see in Pianoteq, which borrows from DAWs, is a loop function. EZ Keys has it too. When I'm editing the sound, I just want to hear a few bars repetitively so that I can edit the sound, without having to press return/stop/play keys again, and again, and again....
It's been suggested several times and for quite a few years now.