I spent the last year using Pianoteq with a keyboard that doesn’t age very well. Clicks and thuds on many keys less than a year into using it. I’m only doing Hanon, scales and the Bach Inventions in my home office. Sending it in for repair and then I’m selling it.
I’m considering the Yamaha P-525 as a replacement. Is anyone using that keyboard with Pianoteq? Are you happy with it? Any issues? I know the P-525 doesn’t send note off velocity but that’s ok for me.
Thanks
I had to look it up. P525 only sends a constant note-off velocity of 64. That's crazy to me for a supposedly top of line DP.
Anyway, I used to have a Yamaha. What was nice is that you could easily replace the cushion yourself, which I did every 3 or 4 years of heavy playing. If the basic mechanism of P525's action is like their GH (not GHS), then I'd be confident as far as longevity. Though ultimately I felt Roland's actions gave more realistic response with Pianoteq. Though Rolands are more a PITA to service yourself.
I had to look it up. P525 only sends a constant note-off velocity of 64. That's crazy to me for a supposedly top of line DP.
Anyway, I used to have a Yamaha. What was nice is that you could easily replace the cushion yourself, which I did every 3 or 4 years of heavy playing. If the basic mechanism of P525's action is like their GH (not GHS), then I'd be confident as far as longevity. Though ultimately I felt Roland's actions gave more realistic response with Pianoteq. Though Rolands are more a PITA to service yourself.
The P525 in addition of the constant note off value sends also 1 CC88 message + 1 CC19 message ahead of each note on , then fixed note off=64 and Polytouch fixed value=18.
-so fixed note off is not optimal
- I assume the CC88 is compatible with midi 1.0 2010 addendum and can be used for extended velocity .
-CC19 message ( key acceleration) and Polytouch are useless with pianoteq and only used internally by Yamaha firmware.
This is a lot of data for a serial protocol and not ideal. I don't think it is designed to be an optimal midi controller to be used with Virtual instruments but the action is nice. I have played the clavinova version for 2 evenings and it was quite nice and responsive.
I spent the last year using Pianoteq with a keyboard that doesn’t age very well. Clicks and thuds on many keys less than a year into using it. I’m only doing Hanon, scales and the Bach Inventions in my home office. Sending it in for repair and then I’m selling it.
I’m considering the Yamaha P-525 as a replacement. Is anyone using that keyboard with Pianoteq? Are you happy with it? Any issues? I know the P-525 doesn’t send note off velocity but that’s ok for me.
Thanks
January Namm in a few months time. Why not hold fire till then to see if something optimal is released. Just a thought.
Warmest regards,
Chris
moshuajusic wrote:I had to look it up. P525 only sends a constant note-off velocity of 64. That's crazy to me for a supposedly top of line DP.
Anyway, I used to have a Yamaha. What was nice is that you could easily replace the cushion yourself, which I did every 3 or 4 years of heavy playing. If the basic mechanism of P525's action is like their GH (not GHS), then I'd be confident as far as longevity. Though ultimately I felt Roland's actions gave more realistic response with Pianoteq. Though Rolands are more a PITA to service yourself.
The P525 in addition of the constant note off value sends also 1 CC88 message + 1 CC19 message ahead of each note on , then fixed note off=64 and Polytouch fixed value=18.
-so fixed note off is not optimal
- I assume the CC88 is compatible with midi 1.0 2010 addendum and can be used for extended velocity .
-CC19 message ( key acceleration) and Polytouch are useless with pianoteq and only used internally by Yamaha firmware.
This is a lot of data for a serial protocol and not ideal. I don't think it is designed to be an optimal midi controller to be used with Virtual instruments but the action is nice. I have played the clavinova version for 2 evenings and it was quite nice and responsive.
Have you seen the cc88 values in PT or perhaps another MIDI capable app ?? As a favor please consider either a screenshot of the MIDI data or a copy paste of the MIDI data text from the app? This is a surprise to me. Thank you
Pianistically wrote:moshuajusic wrote:I had to look it up. P525 only sends a constant note-off velocity of 64. That's crazy to me for a supposedly top of line DP.
Anyway, I used to have a Yamaha. What was nice is that you could easily replace the cushion yourself, which I did every 3 or 4 years of heavy playing. If the basic mechanism of P525's action is like their GH (not GHS), then I'd be confident as far as longevity. Though ultimately I felt Roland's actions gave more realistic response with Pianoteq. Though Rolands are more a PITA to service yourself.
The P525 in addition of the constant note off value sends also 1 CC88 message + 1 CC19 message ahead of each note on , then fixed note off=64 and Polytouch fixed value=18.
-so fixed note off is not optimal
- I assume the CC88 is compatible with midi 1.0 2010 addendum and can be used for extended velocity .
-CC19 message ( key acceleration) and Polytouch are useless with pianoteq and only used internally by Yamaha firmware.
This is a lot of data for a serial protocol and not ideal. I don't think it is designed to be an optimal midi controller to be used with Virtual instruments but the action is nice. I have played the clavinova version for 2 evenings and it was quite nice and responsive.Have you seen the cc88 values in PT or perhaps another MIDI capable app ?? As a favor please consider either a screenshot of the MIDI data or a copy paste of the MIDI data text from the app? This is a surprise to me. Thank you
It has been reported multiple times in other forums in P525 threads.
It is also indicated page 31 of the midi implementation chart of the P525 ( data transmitted CC88)
https://europe.yamaha.com/files/downloa..._dl_b0.pdf
moshuajusic wrote:I had to look it up. P525 only sends a constant note-off velocity of 64. That's crazy to me for a supposedly top of line DP.
Anyway, I used to have a Yamaha. What was nice is that you could easily replace the cushion yourself, which I did every 3 or 4 years of heavy playing. If the basic mechanism of P525's action is like their GH (not GHS), then I'd be confident as far as longevity. Though ultimately I felt Roland's actions gave more realistic response with Pianoteq. Though Rolands are more a PITA to service yourself.
The P525 in addition of the constant note off value sends also 1 CC88 message + 1 CC19 message ahead of each note on , then fixed note off=64 and Polytouch fixed value=18.
-so fixed note off is not optimal
- I assume the CC88 is compatible with midi 1.0 2010 addendum and can be used for extended velocity .
-CC19 message ( key acceleration) and Polytouch are useless with pianoteq and only used internally by Yamaha firmware.
This is a lot of data for a serial protocol and not ideal. I don't think it is designed to be an optimal midi controller to be used with Virtual instruments but the action is nice. I have played the clavinova version for 2 evenings and it was quite nice and responsive.
I read a suggestion somewhere else that this item could be solved by using MidiPipe software between the P525 and Pianoteq. I'm using my P525 mostly with the CFX. For recording midi I use it with Pianoteq, but I am satisfied with how it sounds. I don't completely understand the note off issue and couldn't hear it in my playing anyway. But I'm interest if someone can explain the issue and how it sounds different from what it should sound. And if it's possible and better when using MidiPipe.
Pianistically wrote:moshuajusic wrote:I had to look it up. P525 only sends a constant note-off velocity of 64. That's crazy to me for a supposedly top of line DP.
Anyway, I used to have a Yamaha. What was nice is that you could easily replace the cushion yourself, which I did every 3 or 4 years of heavy playing. If the basic mechanism of P525's action is like their GH (not GHS), then I'd be confident as far as longevity. Though ultimately I felt Roland's actions gave more realistic response with Pianoteq. Though Rolands are more a PITA to service yourself.
The P525 in addition of the constant note off value sends also 1 CC88 message + 1 CC19 message ahead of each note on , then fixed note off=64 and Polytouch fixed value=18.
-so fixed note off is not optimal
- I assume the CC88 is compatible with midi 1.0 2010 addendum and can be used for extended velocity .
-CC19 message ( key acceleration) and Polytouch are useless with pianoteq and only used internally by Yamaha firmware.
This is a lot of data for a serial protocol and not ideal. I don't think it is designed to be an optimal midi controller to be used with Virtual instruments but the action is nice. I have played the clavinova version for 2 evenings and it was quite nice and responsive.I read a suggestion somewhere else that this item could be solved by using MidiPipe software between the P525 and Pianoteq. I'm using my P525 mostly with the CFX. For recording midi I use it with Pianoteq, but I am satisfied with how it sounds. I don't completely understand the note off issue and couldn't hear it in my playing anyway. But I'm interest if someone can explain the issue and how it sounds different from what it should sound. And if it's possible and better when using MidiPipe.
OK , I will do my best to explain. Midi 1.0 has a very limited number of parameters with respect to how information is passed to the Virtual Instrument ( here Pianoteq) to generate a sound. Essentially the parameters for piano playing are Note-on ( pitch & velocity) , Note - off ( pitch & velocity) + any CC value for pedals CC64 sustain, CC67 soft, CC69 sustenato and additional CC's for special pedals such as Mozart Rail , Harmonic Pedal etc.. .
Note- On velocity corresponds to final velocity during Key Descent while Note - Off velocity corresponds to the speed of velocity during key ascent. These values are within the ( 1,127) range. In an acoustic piano, when a key is released very slowly the damper will falls slowly and the tail of the sound being damped is different from the more abrupt termination of the sound when the dampers falls more quickly , corresponding to a fast release. The effect although subtle is noticeable enough to justify the fact that Midi protocol takes care of it. Is it essential ? No, as the effect as such is very subtle and affects only the tail end of the sound release. Is it a nice to have ? Yes , as piano authenticity is the sum of many subtle effects which individually could be ignored , but as whole contributes to the sound being realistic.
Regarding Note-On velocity , it seems that the P525 generates CC88 messages which contains a high resolution prefix that allows controllers capable of interpreting it ( Pianoteq can) to extend the range of Note-on velocity, Note- Off velocities from 128 values to 16,256 .
With respect to the feasibility of using midi pipe , or writing a script in a DAW such as Reaper to transform incoming midi and generates variable values for Note - Off, I thought in the past when the Note-Off issue with the P525 was reported that it could work and is actually trivial to write, BUT unfortunately given the only variable value which is sent besides Note On information and Pedal information is the CC19 which is used by Yamaha for Key acceleration and this controller value is sent PRIOR to note- on values being sent , which means that the value it refers to corresponds to key descent information and not Key Release , therefore you have no variable value to transform using Midi Pipe or Script .
The only advantage you may have using a transformation script , is to clean the number of useless midi messages that are sent for each note on which are not ideal.
Hope it helps.
Thanks Pianistically for your extensive explanation. It's much appreciated that you share your knowledge about this topic.
kind regards,
Fetivi
However it is a pity that Pianoteq does not make use of the poly aftertouch sent in Yamaha’s Grand Expression Modeling (GEM) protocol.
That’s the only way to properly simulate release tails “live” (and not “after the fact”).
Yamaha being the only DP manufacturer trying to enhance the MIDI protocol from a pianistic perspective, I think Modartt should adapt PianoTeq to make also use of all GEM midi messages sent by their hardware, including poly aftertouch and key acceleration.
That would open a new field for staccato play or stuff like that.
At some point, hardware is key and the only limiting factor. So Modartt, go along with Yamaha ! :-)
Fetivi wrote:Pianistically wrote:The P525 in addition of the constant note off value sends also 1 CC88 message + 1 CC19 message ahead of each note on , then fixed note off=64 and Polytouch fixed value=18.
-so fixed note off is not optimal
- I assume the CC88 is compatible with midi 1.0 2010 addendum and can be used for extended velocity .
-CC19 message ( key acceleration) and Polytouch are useless with pianoteq and only used internally by Yamaha firmware.
This is a lot of data for a serial protocol and not ideal. I don't think it is designed to be an optimal midi controller to be used with Virtual instruments but the action is nice. I have played the clavinova version for 2 evenings and it was quite nice and responsive.I read a suggestion somewhere else that this item could be solved by using MidiPipe software between the P525 and Pianoteq. I'm using my P525 mostly with the CFX. For recording midi I use it with Pianoteq, but I am satisfied with how it sounds. I don't completely understand the note off issue and couldn't hear it in my playing anyway. But I'm interest if someone can explain the issue and how it sounds different from what it should sound. And if it's possible and better when using MidiPipe.
OK , I will do my best to explain. Midi 1.0 has a very limited number of parameters with respect to how information is passed to the Virtual Instrument ( here Pianoteq) to generate a sound. Essentially the parameters for piano playing are Note-on ( pitch & velocity) , Note - off ( pitch & velocity) + any CC value for pedals CC64 sustain, CC67 soft, CC69 sustenato and additional CC's for special pedals such as Mozart Rail , Harmonic Pedal etc.. .
Note- On velocity corresponds to final velocity during Key Descent while Note - Off velocity corresponds to the speed of velocity during key ascent. These values are within the ( 1,127) range. In an acoustic piano, when a key is released very slowly the damper will falls slowly and the tail of the sound being damped is different from the more abrupt termination of the sound when the dampers falls more quickly , corresponding to a fast release. The effect although subtle is noticeable enough to justify the fact that Midi protocol takes care of it. Is it essential ? No, as the effect as such is very subtle and affects only the tail end of the sound release. Is it a nice to have ? Yes , as piano authenticity is the sum of many subtle effects which individually could be ignored , but as whole contributes to the sound being realistic.
Regarding Note-On velocity , it seems that the P525 generates CC88 messages which contains a high resolution prefix that allows controllers capable of interpreting it ( Pianoteq can) to extend the range of Note-on velocity, Note- Off velocities from 128 values to 16,256 .
With respect to the feasibility of using midi pipe , or writing a script in a DAW such as Reaper to transform incoming midi and generates variable values for Note - Off, I thought in the past when the Note-Off issue with the P525 was reported that it could work and is actually trivial to write, BUT unfortunately given the only variable value which is sent besides Note On information and Pedal information is the CC19 which is used by Yamaha for Key acceleration and this controller value is sent PRIOR to note- on values being sent , which means that the value it refers to corresponds to key descent information and not Key Release , therefore you have no variable value to transform using Midi Pipe or Script .
The only advantage you may have using a transformation script , is to clean the number of useless midi messages that are sent for each note on which are not ideal.
Hope it helps.
However it is a pity that Pianoteq does not make use of the poly aftertouch sent in Yamaha’s Grand Expression Modeling (GEM) protocol.
That’s the only way to properly simulate release tails “live” (and not “after the fact”).Yamaha being the only DP manufacturer trying to enhance the MIDI protocol from a pianistic perspective, I think Modartt should adapt PianoTeq to make also use of all GEM midi messages sent by their hardware, including poly aftertouch and key acceleration.
That would open a new field for staccato play or stuff like that.
Pianoteq *does support* aftertouch. It can be used to play the Neupert clavichord, part of the KIVIR collection (https://www.modartt.com/neupert).
However, aftertouch and key acceleration would not enhance simulating an acoustic piano simply because they do not exist from the perspective of the mechanics of a piano action. Same reasoning applies to a harpsichord. Aftertouch is actually required to simulate a clavichord because it uses a completely different action mechanism.
It only makes sense to support such messages to simulate instruments that rely on them - and that excludes the acoustic piano, which is the core instrument that Pianoteq is attempting to model.
Paulo164 wrote:However it is a pity that Pianoteq does not make use of the poly aftertouch sent in Yamaha’s Grand Expression Modeling (GEM) protocol.
That’s the only way to properly simulate release tails “live” (and not “after the fact”).Yamaha being the only DP manufacturer trying to enhance the MIDI protocol from a pianistic perspective, I think Modartt should adapt PianoTeq to make also use of all GEM midi messages sent by their hardware, including poly aftertouch and key acceleration.
That would open a new field for staccato play or stuff like that.
Pianoteq *does support* aftertouch. It can be used to play the Neupert clavichord, part of the KIVIR collection (https://www.modartt.com/neupert).
However, aftertouch and key acceleration would not enhance simulating an acoustic piano simply because they do not exist from the perspective of the mechanics of a piano action. Same reasoning applies to a harpsichord. Aftertouch is actually required to simulate a clavichord because it uses a completely different action mechanism.
It only makes sense to support such messages to simulate instruments that rely on them - and that excludes the acoustic piano, which is the core instrument that Pianoteq is attempting to model.
Sorry, you are missing my point here : Poly-aftertouch is mandatory to transmit the position of the dampers.
Piano mechanic uses dampers.
Hope this makes sense :-)