Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Pianoteq still isn't quite my thing, but it's nearly there. That said, this sounds quite nice!
When Pianoteq does get to the next level, just think of the massive new sample library pianos that will come out to take the crown Start saving your money for the 4TB Hard drive to hold it
That is why I'm a fan of Pianoteq, the small foot-print.
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
Oh, great, I have the Petrof 275 already... go to try it soon!
It seems more like and advertisement of Petrof than a Pianoteq new model, though
How do you like the Petrof 275? Going to try out the new model tonight. Pretty fair that they just added it to an existing pack instead of making a new one.
Originally Posted by EPW
Originally Posted by puremusic
Pianoteq still isn't quite my thing, but it's nearly there. That said, this sounds quite nice!
When Pianoteq does get to the next level, just think of the massive new sample library pianos that will come out to take the crown Start saving your money for the 4TB Hard drive to hold it
That is why I'm a fan of Pianoteq, the small foot-print.
I'm not convinced that larger sample size will make for better sampled pianos, let's see about that.
You know, Petrof once built a midi controller with a grand piano action; it looked a bit like the NV10 but more ‘square’ and it didn’t have speakers. A new version of this piano with speakers and powered by Pianoteq would be something special. I hope Petrof and other acoustic piano makers are paying attention.
How do you like the Petrof 275? Going to try out the new model tonight. Pretty fair that they just added it to an existing pack instead of making a new one.
Well, it was not one of my preferred ones, but now, A/B comparing with the new one, both in Prelude preset, I see some merits also on it. It is great they are giving it free for ownners of the previous Petrof. Kudos to Modartt!
Jose
Yamaha U3H Kawai VPC1 ...plus some other DPs, synths, controllers and VSTs
It's a first for me. D/L PTq7.3 , the latest, with this new Petrof included automatically. Sounds great out the box (Prelude and Player) So much better than the previous Petrof so I'm left wondering if I need to do the same with all my other presets too. i could be busy . . .
I am debating if putting it on the first place of PTQ pianos... And I have most of them (7 piano packs). So, yes, worth a try!
Of course the amount of tweaking you can do on any model is just insane, but I tend to use presets the most with minor modifications. For sure guys at Modartt know about piano sound lots more than myself!
Jose
Yamaha U3H Kawai VPC1 ...plus some other DPs, synths, controllers and VSTs
This concert grand sounds quite unique compared to all the other pianos. They have ramped up resonance/reverb on this one to acoustic-like levels, greatly enhancing the illusion of playing an actual acoustic. It's a full-bodied and 3-dimensional sound.
Very interesting indeed, I will have to play around this some more to see what it inspires... but it's definitely fun.
Very generous of Modartt to include a whole new grand with the original Petrof instrument pack. I haven't paid much attention to the original Petrof, but I'm also enjoying it as well.
Sure peterws tempt me to spend more money on the Petrof model
Hey! Go easy, man! It's good; it's not that good! I've been fiddling with it, and in it's initial state it sounds like a sampled Digital. We can't be having that. I played my other heavily tweaked voices and can now see why I did this. This new voice needs the unisons widening, the sympathetic resonance increased and de-tuned savagely. Then it will begin to sound like the real thing and not a sanitized sample. But version 7.3 does sound richer overall to me.
"I think it's the excitement only a free man can feel; a free man at the start of a long journey, whose conclusion is uncertain." -- Morgan Freeman's character, "Red", in The Shawshank Redemption
That is why I'm a fan of Pianoteq, the small foot-print.
Hey folks, come along a-running! I've got this swell new software piano!
Ooh, is it the most realistic?
No.
Is it really woody and warm then?
Err, no.
Does it play just like a high falutin Steinway like that there Horowitz's pi-anna?
Not exactly.
Well what makes it so hum-dickety-doo-dah swell then?
It has a small footprint.
Oh.
But that can go the other way. Hey we added 16GB more samples and 20 more layers. Doiesn't make it better IMHO. Do I think Pianoteq is the best out there. No but it has its place and for plenty of us it is a great option.
Peace
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
Yes, at some point they’ll be at 1,000,000 layers per key and requiring an entire building worth of SSDs to store one single instance of VSL’s newest monstrosity.
The larger they get, the more they prove my point: sampling has hit a brick wall and since it can no longer move past that wall, it’ll continue piling upwards -layer by layer- with more of the same.
Because you know how it goes, if you can’t give ‘em better, simply give ‘em more:
“Go on, Billy Jean, pile up that plate with more o’ them canned beans”.
Thank you, but no; I’ll be on the other side of the ‘wall’ with EPW and friends watching y’all get fat on them beans!
Do I think Pianoteq is the best out there. No but it has its place and for plenty of us it is a great option.
I get that, I really do. I just saw an opportunity for a bit of on-topic leg-pulling.
Your argument about just adding more sample layers...yes I can see that it will happen as a marketing tool.
However, take Garritan CFX Lite; to me it is just as playable as PianoTeq (so PT loses its traditional advantage there). It all comes down to the intrinsic tone, whether there is five layers, twenty or a hundred. FWIW I don't really love the basic tone of Garritan, and I wouldn't love it more if it had a thousand layers, although I think it's good and it has a relatively small footprint.
I don't love PianoTeq's tone because other than at the margins all the models sound the same, and they all have aspects of tone (or lack of tone) in common and that I dislike. I admire it technically and do appreciate its small footprint and reliability/stability in use though.
To me, we're at the point now where the best piano is the tone we like the most and as long as the technical spec (layers, footprint, sampled, modelled, whatever) is good enough, tone is the only thing that matters. That's where PianoTeq (and modelling in general) needs more work, although it is improving. I will listen to the demos of the new Petrof but the existing Petrof was one of the worst PT models to my ears (and pointless - whose favourite piano is a Petrof after all? - they were never a top-line maker).
[quote=EPW]I don't love PianoTeq's tone because other than at the margins all the models sound the same, and they all have aspects of tone (or lack of tone) in common and that I dislike. I admire it technically and do appreciate its small footprint and reliability/stability in use though.
I have a few sampled libraries and PT and I have to say: The sample libraries also kind of sound the same, especially if you compare two libraries of the same piano, like a Steinway Model D.
And quite honestly, the PT Model D and for example the True Keys Model D sound a lot more alike then for example the Pianoteq Bechstein and the PT Model D. The difference between the new Petrof and the Model D in PT is quite siginificant, a lot larger then the difference between the True Keys Model D and True Keys Bechstein. So it really matters what exactly we are comparing here.
I'm turning internal effects off though and use an external reverb. Putting them in the same "room" does a lot to make them sound comparable.
You know, Petrof once built a midi controller with a grand piano action; it looked a bit like the NV10 but more ‘square’ and it didn’t have speakers. A new version of this piano with speakers and powered by Pianoteq would be something special. I hope Petrof and other acoustic piano makers are paying attention.
In the organ world, this is completely normal.
Church organ: Hauptwerk-console. Build an organ console, and power it with Hauptwerk + Sample library, or the new kid, Organteq. Console example
Hammond organ: HX3 Hammond-like console, powered by GSi VB3. HX3 drawbar module: can replace the drawbars of any digital Hammond). You basically remove the original drawbars and replace them with this module, and then then connect the module's sound output to the organ's speakers. Mojo 61 Duo: Hammmond console, also powered by GSi VB3. GSi Hammond controller: the "organ version" of the VPC1; connect to any computer and any VST you want. Theatre organ: also some options, including Hauptwerk if I remember correctly.
So as I said, in the organ world it's completely normal to have an organ controller/console that is powered by a computer.
Kawai Novus NV-10 | Pianoteq 7 (Kremsegg 1 & 2, Ruckers II, Karsten, KIVIR, Steinway D, K2) Intel NUC J5040, 8GB, SSD | iPad Pro 12.9 2018 | forScore
Church organ: Hauptwerk-console. Build an organ console, and power it with Hauptwerk + Sample library, or the new kid, Organteq.
Console example:
Wow! 😲❤️ I need this!!!
Like a hole in the head. I played church organ stuff. Hard to find a stop sometimes which doesn't sound like the thing's fartin' Or perhaps we needed a new blower man.
Well what makes it so hum-dickety-doo-dah swell then?
It has a small footprint.
Oh.
IMO the small footprint is a game changer, now that our forum member navindra figured out how to run it on a Raspberry Pi system. I installed it on a Raspberry Pi 400 myself last week. For 75 euros you are done, and you have a nice headless system that works very well. No need for expensive computer hardware anymore. You do still need a usb audio device. Switch the computer on, wait for 20s and play, switch it off when you are done. Want to change settings/piano? Use your table or phone to connect the the Pi wirelessly and do so. Very elegant solution.
IMO the small footprint is a game changer, now that our forum member navindra figured out how to run it on a Raspberry Pi system. I installed it on a Raspberry Pi 400 myself last week. For 75 euros you are done....Very elegant solution.
All irrelevant if you don't like the sound of it.
Some people just seem to be very sensitive to what they perceive to be PianoTeq's tonal deficiencies. I am one of those people. I wish I wasn't.
Yes I agree. But what you perceive may change over time. I first liked Pianoteq, although it sounded slightly artificial, then switched to a sampled library (Bechstein Digital Grand), and after months switched back. Pianoteq suddenly sounded completely different to my ears: very bad and artificial. Somehow my auditory systems were matching pianoteq input with expected BDG sample input and 'magnified' the difference. Probably because I used the Bechstein in Pianoteq, which models the exact same sample library.... But after a while things normalized in my head, and now I think Pianoteq sounds good again.
Yes I agree. But what you perceive may change over time. I first liked Pianoteq, although it sounded slightly artificial, then switched to a sampled library (Bechstein Digital Grand), and after months switched back. Pianoteq suddenly sounded completely different to my ears: very bad and artificial. Somehow my auditory systems were matching pianoteq input with expected BDG sample input and 'magnified' the difference. Probably because I used the Bechstein in Pianoteq, which models the exact same sample library.... But after a while things normalized in my head, and now I think Pianoteq sounds good again.
Yes, there's definitely something in what you say. But I think it's telling that PianoTeq sounds good to you as long as you're not comparing it to a decent sample. I think in isolation PianoTeq is indeed acceptable. FWIW I think the PianoTeq Bechstein model is comfortably the best model they do, but to me it sounds nothing at all like a Bechstein. I feel that the names they call their models are just meaningless labels. I'd rather they just called them 'Piano Emulation 1', 'Piano Emulation 2', etc, etc.
Likewise, although you don't say explicitly, I think there's an implication in what you're saying that when you initially switched from PianoTeq to the BDG you did not experience the same negative reaction as when you switched back from the BDG to PianoTeq. My theory is that the sound of a real piano just somehow sits comfortably in the consciousness. The sound of a synthesised piano takes some time to become 'normal', and to certain people it never will.
I feel that the names they call their models are just meaningless labels. I'd rather they just called them 'Piano Emulation 1', 'Piano Emulation 2', etc, etc.
I mean they are modeled after real world examples and the people of the brands like Steinway give their blessing for it and say "Jupp, that sounds like a Model D". Something they very rarely do for virtual instruments of any kind. Considering how good Steinway is in brand building, I'm pretty sure they aren't going to agree on anything that might not represent the brand to their standards.
And if I compare my sampled model Ds with the PT versions they sound rather similar, each one with specific characteristics, but close nevertheless. A lot closer then the PT instruments are to each other.
Yes I agree. But what you perceive may change over time. I first liked Pianoteq, although it sounded slightly artificial, then switched to a sampled library (Bechstein Digital Grand), and after months switched back. Pianoteq suddenly sounded completely different to my ears: very bad and artificial. Somehow my auditory systems were matching pianoteq input with expected BDG sample input and 'magnified' the difference. Probably because I used the Bechstein in Pianoteq, which models the exact same sample library.... But after a while things normalized in my head, and now I think Pianoteq sounds good again.
I've never tried the original Bechstein DG but it think it would be interesting to compare it to the modeled version in Pianoteq since it is, as you say, the same samples that modartt used to create their version of it. I did once play along the audio examples that's on Bechsteins website with Pianoteq and I must say the sonic qualities was quite similar. How would you describe the differences when playing both and why did you go back to Pianoteq despite having the original digital grand?
Originally Posted by Pete14
This is the Petrof ‘midi controller’ I mentioned earlier. Imagine this beast with speakers and Pianoteq built in!
Wow, this looks really nice and solid. I've never heard about it before, do you know how much they charged for it? Imagine Renner doing something like that (although that will probably never happen, especially now when they're owned by Steinway...:))
Last edited by johanibraaten; 04/08/2107:38 AM.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
I feel that the names they call their models are just meaningless labels. I'd rather they just called them 'Piano Emulation 1', 'Piano Emulation 2', etc, etc.
I mean they are modeled after real world examples....
Yes but to me it just sounds like PianoTeq. I get that there are differences between their 'models', I really do, but they all have unifying tonal characteristics to my ears that means it's just PianoTeq to me. There's a thread running through every PinaoTeq sound. Difficult to explain but unmistakeable and un-piano-like.
But I think it's telling that PianoTeq sounds good to you as long as you're not comparing it to a decent sample. I think in isolation PianoTeq is indeed acceptable. FWIW I think the PianoTeq Bechstein model is comfortably the best model they do, but to me it sounds nothing at all like a Bechstein. I feel that the names they call their models are just meaningless labels. I'd rather they just called them 'Piano Emulation 1', 'Piano Emulation 2', etc, etc.
It's a business model aimed at selling you edited presets of the same tone generator. You're literally paying for the endorsement logo of the respective manufacturer which helps you with that illusion. Without the logo nobody could tell that this one "Pianoteq" preset should resemble a "Bechstein" grand and this other one a "Steinway".
It helps with marketing too, because each time a new preset has been created, someone creates a new thread on PW endorsing Ptq.
But I think it's telling that PianoTeq sounds good to you as long as you're not comparing it to a decent sample. I think in isolation PianoTeq is indeed acceptable. FWIW I think the PianoTeq Bechstein model is comfortably the best model they do, but to me it sounds nothing at all like a Bechstein. I feel that the names they call their models are just meaningless labels. I'd rather they just called them 'Piano Emulation 1', 'Piano Emulation 2', etc, etc.
It's a business model aimed at selling you edited presets of the same tone generator. You're literally paying for the endorsement logo of the respective manufacturer which helps you with that illusion. Without the logo nobody could tell that this one "Pianoteq" preset should resemble a "Bechstein" grand and this other one a "Steinway".
It helps with marketing too, because each time a new preset has been created, someone creates a new thread on PW endorsing Ptq.
It's a business model aimed at selling you edited presets of the same tone generator.
Although this is a very cynical view, I think it has a good deal of merit. I do not believe, however, that it is quite as bad as that. In their general piano model, Modartt probably keeps certain parameters for themselves, so that the user cannot adjust them. And it is precisely these parameters that are used to distinguish the "Steinway B" from the "Grotrian", etc.
It would be interesting, maybe in a somewhat academic way, to see how close one Pianoteq instrument could be made to sound like another, using only the parameters available for the customer.
Physical instruments: Roland FP-30, and E-28 Virtual instruments: "The Experience" piano collection, NI "The Maverick", Galaxy II Grand piano collection, Synthogy Ivory II Studio Grands, Production Voices Estate Grand, Garritan CFX Lite, Pianoteq 7.5.2 Focus: 1850±100 years
I've never tried the original Bechstein DG but it think it would be interesting to compare it to the modeled version in Pianoteq since it is, as you say, the same samples that modartt used to create their version of it. I did once play along the audio examples that's on Bechsteins website with Pianoteq and I must say the sonic qualities was quite similar. How would you describe the differences when playing both and why did you go back to Pianoteq despite having the original digital grand?
The original Bechstein DG sounds gorgeous. To me it sounds more realistic, and more beautiful than the Pianoteq model of it. It plays also nicely out of the box, unlike many other sampled libraries that I tried.
*But*, I often switch back to Pianoteq because of practical reasons. I have a reasonably powerful laptop, but it is not powerful enough to play the BDG without glitches. I don't mind small occasional audio hiccups, but too often I get truncated sound especially when pedaling. I tried a more powerful laptop, and that works fine, but I don't want to sacrifice a 2.5k euro laptop just for playing with a nicer sound.
I now have Garritan CFX, which is much better in this respect, and I like the sound. But it has a looooooong loading time, especially because I have it on an external USB SSD drive. And then I need an external drive, more cables, stuff at my piano.
So in essence, I agree that Pianoteq does not sound the best of all options out there, but to me the sound is more than acceptable now. It sounds better than the samples of my digital ATX3 system, which is the best Kawai at the moment has. The same as in the NV10. In return for not having the best sound available, you have a very small footprint. You can play this literally on a raspberry pi (!), boots up in no time, finds my audio card + piano when woken up from sleep (unlike all my other VSTs), etc. Very playable out of the box. It is just very convenient and you don't need a very expensive computer to play without glitches.
I should say that I can live with the fact that the sound is not the very best, because with my silent piano I do have the acoustic option for the best sound.
You mean we are unable to distinguish a recorded Steinway D sample from a recorded Yamaha CFX sample without having a logo on it?
Originally Posted by QuasiUnaFantasia
It would be interesting, maybe in a somewhat academic way, to see how close one Pianoteq instrument could be made to sound like another, using only the parameters available for the customer.
To me that tone generator (which sounds like a "Pianoteq" regardless of the preset) is just not that interesting in general.
I've never tried the original Bechstein DG but it think it would be interesting to compare it to the modeled version in Pianoteq since it is, as you say, the same samples that modartt used to create their version of it. I did once play along the audio examples that's on Bechsteins website with Pianoteq and I must say the sonic qualities was quite similar. How would you describe the differences when playing both and why did you go back to Pianoteq despite having the original digital grand?
The original Bechstein DG sounds gorgeous. To me it sounds more realistic, and more beautiful than the Pianoteq model of it. It plays also nicely out of the box, unlike many other sampled libraries that I tried.
*But*, I often switch back to Pianoteq because of practical reasons. I have a reasonably powerful laptop, but it is not powerful enough to play the BDG without glitches. I don't mind small occasional audio hiccups, but too often I get truncated sound especially when pedaling. I tried a more powerful laptop, and that works fine, but I don't want to sacrifice a 2.5k euro laptop just for playing with a nicer sound.
I now have Garritan CFX, which is much better in this respect, and I like the sound. But it has a looooooong loading time, especially because I have it on an external USB SSD drive. And then I need an external drive, more cables, stuff at my piano.
So in essence, I agree that Pianoteq does not sound the best of all options out there, but to me the sound is more than acceptable now. It sounds better than the samples of my digital ATX3 system, which is the best Kawai at the moment has. The same as in the NV10. In return for not having the best sound available, you have a very small footprint. You can play this literally on a raspberry pi (!), boots up in no time, finds my audio card + piano when woken up from sleep (unlike all my other VSTs), etc. Very playable out of the box. It is just very convenient and you don't need a very expensive computer to play without glitches.
I should say that I can live with the fact that the sound is not the very best, because with my silent piano I do have the acoustic option for the best sound.
Interesting, thank you for your response. I agree that the convenience and the reliability of Pianoteq is stellar. I like the sound too, especially the Steinways and the Petrofs (including this new one). I'm not too crazy about the Bechstein though.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Wow, this looks really nice and solid. I've never heard about it before, do you know how much they charged for it? Imagine Renner doing something like that (although that will probably never happen, especially now when they're owned by Steinway...:))
I’m not sure, but I assume it was expensive and perhaps ahead of its time in the sense that so-called “serious” pianists still said “but I want hammers hitting strings” (you know, like the little babies that they are).
You know, we still have some of those stubborn serious people ‘round here, but they are swiftly moving into the minority, so yes, Petrof might reconsider and re-release this beast with optical sensors, speakers, and Pianoteq built in!
This ‘perfect’ hybrid is around the corner; as a matter of fact, Steingraeber is already offering an acoustic-based hybrid with, you guessed it, Pianoteq built in. For me, all Steingraeber has to do is get rid of the strings, iron plate, and hammers, but keep the soundboard and action in a slightly modified -smaller- baby cabinet, and I will sell my last kidney for it (sold first kidney to settle an offer I could not refuse).
Are we overthinking or overanalyzing or plain misunderstanding modeling, myself included? I (currently) understand modeling to be:
- A set of base sounds, quite possibly very clean acoustic tones - Complex algorithms to use them and create an output sound based on touch/dynamics - A set of options using which you can tweak those algorithms and create a sound that works for you - Ability to interact with DAW software where the sound can be further shaped for recording and production
Are we expecting more from modeling? Should I expect more from modeling?
A man must love a thing very much if he practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practice it without any hope of doing it well. Such a man must love the toils of the work more than any other man can love the rewards of it. G. K. Chesterton
- A set of base sounds, quite possibly very clean acoustic tones - Complex algorithms to use them and create an output sound based on touch/dynamics
This describes another kind of modelling, which Pianoteq does not use. It would make use of sampled sound from the outset.
At least to my knowledge Modartt does not start from a sampled sound, instead they start from equations describing the motions involved in an acoustic piano, most importantly the vibrations of the strings, given their physical constraints. Whether they model the action of the hammers themselves, I do not know.
Physical instruments: Roland FP-30, and E-28 Virtual instruments: "The Experience" piano collection, NI "The Maverick", Galaxy II Grand piano collection, Synthogy Ivory II Studio Grands, Production Voices Estate Grand, Garritan CFX Lite, Pianoteq 7.5.2 Focus: 1850±100 years
At least to my knowledge Modartt does not start from a sampled sound, instead they start from equations describing the motions involved in an acoustic piano, most importantly the vibrations of the strings, given their physical constraints. Whether they model the action of the hammers themselves, I do not know.
The Bechstein model is based from samples : they are the Bechstein Digital Grand samples.
Then we can expect - but who knows - that other models are also tweaked to sound more like given samples.
Since the purpose is to make the model the closest to the piano sound, using samples seems to be a natural way. (Whatever we can read un the patent which seems to model physically the piano).
Last edited by Frédéric L; 04/08/2110:04 AM.
http://www.sinerj.org/ http://humeur-synthe.sinerj.org/ Yamaha N1X, Bechstein Digital Grand, Garritan CFX, Ivory II pianos, Galaxy pianos, EWQL Pianos, Native-Instrument The Definitive Piano Collection, Soniccouture Hammersmith, Truekeys, Pianoteq
Since this thread once again "went into the river" (that's a humorous translation of a Bulgarian saying related to a horse that went into the river while pulling a carriage, thus everything is FUBAR).
Are we sure that if you play one and same note 10 times in Pianoteq with the same MIDI velocity (e.g. through programming), it won't generate ten equal soundwaves Has anyone done that experimentation? I know there's some randomization slider, but if we switch it off (is it switched off by default?) does it always produce one and same tone bitwise? If so, then it's the same as a sample-based library which is often criticized for producing the same static tone (which isn't always technically true since some sample-based libraries use round-robin samples, meaning they have multiple samples for the same velocity to introduce variety).
Overall, I think my point is that model based sound generators are unfairly getting a bad name. I don't think they will ever sound like an acoustic. Any claims to that effect are just marketing attempts. I will appreciate a model based sound generator for what it is.
A man must love a thing very much if he practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practice it without any hope of doing it well. Such a man must love the toils of the work more than any other man can love the rewards of it. G. K. Chesterton
The Bechstein model is based from samples : they are the Bechstein Digital Grand samples.
I believe their use of the Bechstein samples is quite compatible with the physical modelling. What they (probably) have done is tune a number of parameters in the model to make the resulting sound most similar to the samples. This is something they would always have to do anyway with every model, since they must ultimately compare the generated sound with a sampled one (unless they have the physical counterpart standing next to the computer, and use their ears to compare the sounds).
Physical instruments: Roland FP-30, and E-28 Virtual instruments: "The Experience" piano collection, NI "The Maverick", Galaxy II Grand piano collection, Synthogy Ivory II Studio Grands, Production Voices Estate Grand, Garritan CFX Lite, Pianoteq 7.5.2 Focus: 1850±100 years
Additive synthesis is based on mixing sine waves. There are no "clean acoustic tones" anywhere in the equation.
"Clean acoustic tones" are based on mixing sine waves.
Well, it's not necessarily that simple as the resonating objects rarely resonate on only a single axis, so things get multidimensional of course.
And maybe(?) mathematically one could use an infinite series of square waves to produce a perfect sine wave (as one can the other way round) but where do you find square wave resonators in real life? It's all about sinusoidal vibration and overtones. In musical instruments at least.
This ‘perfect’ hybrid is around the corner; as a matter of fact, Steingraeber is already offering an acoustic-based hybrid with, you guessed it, Pianoteq built in. For me, all Steingraeber has to do is get rid of the strings, iron plate, and hammers, but keep the soundboard and action in a slightly modified -smaller- baby cabinet, and I will sell my last kidney for it (sold first kidney to settle an offer I could not refuse).
Agree with you. Steigreaber has taken the lead and made a useful attempt, which I think is a future development, to build in modeling based synthetic software such as PTQ to drive the soundboard of A/DP hybrid. Why not sampling? cuz the soundboard needs the strings like synthetic signals not a recording sound to playback. I think the home of piano music lovers in the future, absolutely need or dream to have such a piano including me.
The physical modelling seems more likely when read the manual again. A model just tuned from samples wouldn’t allow « strike point », « soundboard mechanical impedance » settings.
Last edited by Frédéric L; 04/08/2111:32 AM.
http://www.sinerj.org/ http://humeur-synthe.sinerj.org/ Yamaha N1X, Bechstein Digital Grand, Garritan CFX, Ivory II pianos, Galaxy pianos, EWQL Pianos, Native-Instrument The Definitive Piano Collection, Soniccouture Hammersmith, Truekeys, Pianoteq
The physical modelling seems more likely when read the manual again. A model just tuned from samples wouldn’t allow « strike point », « soundboard mechanical impedance » settings.
Yes, I think that is more feasible and compatible with all the information they have provided so far.
My only complaint with PTQ is that with headphones I get tired easily, while sampled libraries can endure a two hour long session without any troubles. I have tried reducing higher frequencies using the equaliser, and it helps somewhat, but still there is something which makes me switch in relatively short time. But with speakers it is easier to my ears... Anyone with same problem?
Jose
Yamaha U3H Kawai VPC1 ...plus some other DPs, synths, controllers and VSTs
My speculation regarding what is modeled and what is synthesized is this: they synthesize the main string sound through summing of sine waves. Which is why they can start from recorded samples, because one can apply Fourier-transform to the recorded sound and extract the sine wave coefficients and their change over time. Then synthesize the sound when playing back in the opposite way. And I guess with the knowledge they gathered so far, they know how different soundboard parameters would translate to different sine-wave coefficients, etc.
Not sure how to explain it well, so I will make an analogy:
- A sample based piano contains some recordings of a real piano and to simulate open/closed lid, they would just apply a simple EQ on the sound to make it brighter or darker.
- If the sound is produced through sine summing (synthesized), a frequency-domain function might be applied to model better how closing the lid affects the sound. This can be called modeling because it's not just a simple EQ but is a mathematical function. Now, extend that to soundboard, strike point, hammer hardness, etc.
I think a common misunderstanding held by people (including me until recently) is that modeling means "finite element method", or in human language: to recreate the entire physical dimensions of the piano and its moving parts in the computer, and then make a virtual movement of the hammer that strikes the string, vibrates it and we magically have the sound from it 😀 Sounds nice but in another scientific paper it was proven that doing that would require 24 hours to render just 1 second of the sound.
So, "modeling" is a flexible term that can be used in almost any way. It's a nice catch word because it sounds cool. However one should listen to the result, namely the produced piano sound, not the marketing buzzwords describing that sound
We can have something more physically oriented. Compute the sine coefficients according to d’Alembert formulae and the strinking point, then modulate each coefficient to match the Fourier transform of the samples (if the striking point is adequate). The modulation is the piano signature stored in Pianoteq. It is a sort of EQ which takes into account the soundboard properties.
I think the finite element method needs too much CPU and less likely to be as accurate as a EQ tuned with samples.
http://www.sinerj.org/ http://humeur-synthe.sinerj.org/ Yamaha N1X, Bechstein Digital Grand, Garritan CFX, Ivory II pianos, Galaxy pianos, EWQL Pianos, Native-Instrument The Definitive Piano Collection, Soniccouture Hammersmith, Truekeys, Pianoteq
Sounds nice but in another scientific paper it was proven that doing that would require 24 hours to render just 1 second of the sound.
My point exactly!
The bottleneck is not in the technology itself, namely modeling, but rather in the processing power; however, once we manage to scale down a super-computer the size of a building into a Mac Mini, and manage to make it affordable, we can model the ‘piano’ in real time (no approximations) all the way down to the quantum level without splitting its atoms (that would cause an explosion).
You are aware that the processor in your Apple Watch is more powerful than all the processing components in the Apollo 11 spacecraft, and that ship got us to the moon!
So yes, give us some time and we will be able to model you, the person, all the way down to your DNA!
FIG. 7 illustrates an implementation of the method of finite elements that is capable of being used in a presynthesis module according to the invention,
[...]
The method of finite elements is implemented in order to determine, for each note p of the piano to be simulated, an impedance value Znp of the sounding-board for each partial n of the note p. These sounding-board impedance values Znp are representative of physical properties of the sounding-board.
Then the Modartt patent proposes to solve some equations by finite elements (the presynthesis module). Once the result is stored and downloaded with the virtual piano, these parameters are ready to be used for the synthesiser.
But I find it easier and more accurate to just have some EQ profile and per notes impedances computed from samples which tunes the sine coefficient and mimick the given piano.
Last edited by Frédéric L; 04/08/2112:57 PM.
http://www.sinerj.org/ http://humeur-synthe.sinerj.org/ Yamaha N1X, Bechstein Digital Grand, Garritan CFX, Ivory II pianos, Galaxy pianos, EWQL Pianos, Native-Instrument The Definitive Piano Collection, Soniccouture Hammersmith, Truekeys, Pianoteq
My only complaint with PTQ is that with headphones I get tired easily, while sampled libraries can endure a two hour long session without any troubles. I have tried reducing higher frequencies using the equaliser, and it helps somewhat, but still there is something which makes me switch in relatively short time. But with speakers it is easier to my ears... Anyone with same problem?
I agree that pianoteq can be hard on the ears, but I find it highly dependable on the preset. Many seems to fancy the "prelude" or the "player" presets, but to me they are among the most demanding for the ears through headphones. I like the pure presets that has the model name like "Steinway model B", "Ant. Perrof 275" but some recording presets are nice too, like "NY Steinway jazz recording". To me these presets are easier on the ears. However, if I compare the general pianoteq sound with the built in sounds of my DP:s, the balance between registers are different and the treble is louder compared to the lower registers (more like sitting at an acoustic piano), but this make somehow the built in sounds easier on the ears with headphones. Luckily you can adjust this in pianoteq (standard and pro). I wish that Modartt will implement something like Yamahas binaural mode. There is a binaural mode in pianoteq but it's not the same.
May I ask if you have any recommendations for sampled librarys that's comfortable to play through headphones?
Last edited by johanibraaten; 04/08/2103:47 PM.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
We can have something more physically oriented. Compute the sine coefficients according to d’Alembert formulae and the strinking point, then modulate each coefficient to match the Fourier transform of the samples (if the striking point is adequate). The modulation is the piano signature stored in Pianoteq.
OMG! That one swiftly flew over my head. #TechSaturation
A man must love a thing very much if he practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practice it without any hope of doing it well. Such a man must love the toils of the work more than any other man can love the rewards of it. G. K. Chesterton
The d’Alembert formulae does describe the vibration of a string like a piano or a guitar string.
Given some initial conditions (which are quite different depending if the string is plucked or striked), you can deduce from the d’Alembert formulae each harmonic amplitudes of the string. Since the soundboard act as an EQ, you should multiply each string amplitude by a given number to match the chosen piano sound.
The mathematics are a bit complex (2 variables differential equation), but can be taught by physics lessons in university.
(The striking point parameter does impact the initial condition and then the timbre : strike the string at its 9th length and you have no 9th harmonic).
Last edited by Frédéric L; 04/08/2105:27 PM.
http://www.sinerj.org/ http://humeur-synthe.sinerj.org/ Yamaha N1X, Bechstein Digital Grand, Garritan CFX, Ivory II pianos, Galaxy pianos, EWQL Pianos, Native-Instrument The Definitive Piano Collection, Soniccouture Hammersmith, Truekeys, Pianoteq
I just got rid of Pianoteq 7.3 and replaced it with my previous 7.03 with some degree of sorrow. That new Petrof was great, and the voicing seems also to have been improved across the range. To the degree that I simply can't recognise the different instruments any more. I had 6 different instruments which sounded darn near the same. Good, but pointless. I'd rather have the imperfections such as they are, knowing that they'll still sound great recorded. Sigh. (shrug)
I just got rid of Pianoteq 7.3 and replaced it with my previous 7.03 with some degree of sorrow. That new Petrof was great, and the voicing seems also to have been improved across the range. To the degree that I simply can't recognise the different instruments any more. I had 6 different instruments which sounded darn near the same. Good, but pointless. I'd rather have the imperfections such as they are, knowing that they'll still sound great recorded. Sigh. (shrug)
Strangely, I don't feel that way. I upgraded from V7.0.0 to V7.3.0 step by step. The several pianos I use, such as the YC5/ SteinwayB /Bluthner, still behave completely differently with each upgrade, even though most of the basic settings are the same(Velocity, Microphones, Harmer Hardness, Reverb effect...)
But of course, most pianos do sound very similar on their default presets in V7. You can try more of your own settings, and don't forget the Morphing function, even self-morphing two or three times, to make a difference.
The various Pianoteq pianos definitely sound very different from each other. I believe we are well past the days where all the instruments sounded the same. The fact that I liked several of the instruments as I auditioned them, and they all felt very individual, is what pushed me to get the studio bundle anyway.
My current preference is the NY Steinway D but the new Petrof is a welcome addition and there is no question that it is a new instrument.
I've reached the point where the NY Steinway D consistently feels better than the native Kawai voice, and this wasn't always the case for me. Pianoteq is just feeling more open, more alive, more resonant, more acoustic-like. I'm always A-B'ing them and the decision used to be very hard. The Kawai would consistently surprise me.
Kawai native still does some things better I think, like staccato. Pianoteq does not sound as crisp for some reason, which is puzzling to say the least... The Kawai staccato matches my acoustic, so I think Modartt just forgot to model staccato entirely... or it could be a reverb thing. For my piano lessons, I have to change to the Kawai voice while doing staccato, else it does not pass muster.
Are we sure that if you play one and same note 10 times in Pianoteq with the same MIDI velocity (e.g. through programming), it won't generate ten equal soundwaves Has anyone done that experimentation? I know there's some randomization slider, but if we switch it off (is it switched off by default?) does it always produce one and same tone bitwise? If so, then it's the same as a sample-based library which is often criticized for producing the same static tone (which isn't always technically true since some sample-based libraries use round-robin samples, meaning they have multiple samples for the same velocity to introduce variety).
Good thought... a more dynamic model and even tuning that changes slightly over time and while playing might liven things up.
Phil Best tried something similar to your experiment, directly inputting MIDI values instead of playing a piece, and he concluded that Pianoteq sounded more sterile compared to the sampler... The samples just have some default character built in to them, but in Pianoteq this is up to the player.
Yes Navindra, you can try it. Such as morphing Bluthner X3 or even X6 for itself， you will find the difference. I didn't believe it at first, I always morph different pianos, but my friend told me that. He did the test and analyzed the output waveform. After several self-morphing, the sound was indeed changed, and I felt that the density was higher than original one. Anyway, the new Morphing and Layering of PTQV7 gives us a lot of possibilities.
I've been ignoring Petrof275 before, Just downloaded and played the new Petrof-284, based on Warm presets, only made a few quick adjustments. Wow, so elegant and comfortable piano sound, from bass to high, 3-Bands are very balanced. Btw, V7.3 can do lid-off in Mics setting. Will tweak it carefully to find the best way for me later.
The other virtual piano which has binaural sampling is the Hammersmith which is quite brighter but fine too (but I prefer mellower pianos).
Thank you, how does the Hammersmith and the Garritan CFX compare when it comes to playability? I've been looking at the VSL pianos but apparently they don't have binaural recordings. Can you (or anyone else) say how they compare when playing with headphones?
Last edited by johanibraaten; 04/09/2105:38 AM.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
The other virtual piano which has binaural sampling is the Hammersmith which is quite brighter but fine too (but I prefer mellower pianos).
Thank you, how does the Hammersmith and the Garritan CFX compare when it comes to playability? I've been looking at the VSL pianos but apparently they don't have binaural recordings. Can you (or anyone else) say how they compare when playing with headphones?
I only have the free Hammersmith so can't speak to that instrument. The playability of the Garritan is really excellent, though; it's extremely responsive and immersive as a playing experience. I don't feel like it loses out in any way to Pianoteq, though I don't have the most sophisticated technique to put it to the test!
Garritan CFX has binaural sampling? I was aware that the CFX in Yamaha's top-of-the-line digital pianos has that, but Garritan? That has totally escaped me.
Physical instruments: Roland FP-30, and E-28 Virtual instruments: "The Experience" piano collection, NI "The Maverick", Galaxy II Grand piano collection, Synthogy Ivory II Studio Grands, Production Voices Estate Grand, Garritan CFX Lite, Pianoteq 7.5.2 Focus: 1850±100 years
Yes, the (full) Garritan CFX has 6 microphones pairs and one of them is a binaural perspective recorded with a Neumann KU100 head.
All right! Thanks! I only have the "Lite" version, so that may be why I never noticed this. That's actually a very decent reason to upgrade, in my opinion.
I wish this were a typical feature for VI's.
Physical instruments: Roland FP-30, and E-28 Virtual instruments: "The Experience" piano collection, NI "The Maverick", Galaxy II Grand piano collection, Synthogy Ivory II Studio Grands, Production Voices Estate Grand, Garritan CFX Lite, Pianoteq 7.5.2 Focus: 1850±100 years
Sure peterws tempt me to spend more money on the Petrof model
Hey! Go easy, man! It's good; it's not that good! I've been fiddling with it, and in it's initial state it sounds like a sampled Digital. We can't be having that. I played my other heavily tweaked voices and can now see why I did this. This new voice needs the unisons widening, the sympathetic resonance increased and de-tuned savagely. Then it will begin to sound like the real thing and not a sanitized sample. But version 7.3 does sound richer overall to me.
I'm a newbie with pianoteq. You Mentioned 3 characteristics which you recommend changing. Could you please be more specific so newbies like myself can get the sound you are getting? That would be very much appreciated.
1. Unison widening.... what value should that setting be at? Or is it different note by note? 2. Sympathetic resonance.... again, what value? 3. Detuning..... how, and to what extent? (Numerically)
Sorry if my question seems ignorant and/or lazy,For clarification would be really really great. Thanks!
Regarding staccato with PTQ - I would also take a look at Release Velocity Curve and adjust it depending on your MIDI keyboard note-off implementation.
Thank you, how does the Hammersmith and the Garritan CFX compare when it comes to playability? I've been looking at the VSL pianos but apparently they don't have binaural recordings. Can you (or anyone else) say how they compare when playing with headphones?
In short, though they are not true binaural recordings, they sound wonderful, but don't take my word as is. Expanding:-
- The VSL Synchron Pianos player has a multitude of configurable options including very intricate pan settings, for each mic. - Combine those settings with the correct close player mic selections (there are 3 of them). - Apply a selection of effects and reverbs, again, to each mic.
I am pretty confident by tweaking the settings, you can produce a sound that closely matches a binaural sample. I think it requires a lot of patience and experimentation.
A man must love a thing very much if he practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practice it without any hope of doing it well. Such a man must love the toils of the work more than any other man can love the rewards of it. G. K. Chesterton
My only complaint with PTQ is that with headphones I get tired easily, while sampled libraries can endure a two hour long session without any troubles. I have tried reducing higher frequencies using the equaliser, and it helps somewhat, but still there is something which makes me switch in relatively short time. But with speakers it is easier to my ears... Anyone with same problem?
I agree that pianoteq can be hard on the ears, but I find it highly dependable on the preset. Many seems to fancy the "prelude" or the "player" presets, but to me they are among the most demanding for the ears through headphones. I like the pure presets that has the model name like "Steinway model B", "Ant. Perrof 275" but some recording presets are nice too, like "NY Steinway jazz recording". To me these presets are easier on the ears. However, if I compare the general pianoteq sound with the built in sounds of my DP:s, the balance between registers are different and the treble is louder compared to the lower registers (more like sitting at an acoustic piano), but this make somehow the built in sounds easier on the ears with headphones. Luckily you can adjust this in pianoteq (standard and pro). I wish that Modartt will implement something like Yamahas binaural mode. There is a binaural mode in pianoteq but it's not the same.
May I ask if you have any recommendations for sampled librarys that's comfortable to play through headphones?
Thanks for your comments, will do some tests with pure presets.
I use VSL Bösendorfer Imperial quite a lot with headphones and can use it for hours without listening fatigue.
Jose
Yamaha U3H Kawai VPC1 ...plus some other DPs, synths, controllers and VSTs
Sure peterws tempt me to spend more money on the Petrof model
Hey! Go easy, man! It's good; it's not that good! I've been fiddling with it, and in it's initial state it sounds like a sampled Digital. We can't be having that. I played my other heavily tweaked voices and can now see why I did this. This new voice needs the unisons widening, the sympathetic resonance increased and de-tuned savagely. Then it will begin to sound like the real thing and not a sanitized sample. But version 7.3 does sound richer overall to me.
I'm a newbie with pianoteq. You Mentioned 3 characteristics which you recommend changing. Could you please be more specific so newbies like myself can get the sound you are getting? That would be very much appreciated.
1. Unison widening.... what value should that setting be at? Or is it different note by note? 2. Sympathetic resonance.... again, what value? 3. Detuning..... how, and to what extent? (Numerically)
Sorry if my question seems ignorant and/or lazy,For clarification would be really really great. Thanks!
You'll really have to try these out for yourself, safe in the knowledge that you can revert back to your original settings easily if you don't save the new ones. The three I mentioned seem to have the biggest and best effect without splitting hairs. There's a lot in pianoteq which is . . . .complex to some, and very timewasting. Have fun! It's a great product..
Although in a recent thread about tweaking maximum performance out of Pianoteq 7 STAGE I failed to get a pleasing sound and gave up, I have recently been back to practicing on Pianoteq 7 in lieu of my Garritan CFX. After multiple days of playing exclusively Pianoteq, it think I became so used to its great playability, that when I went back to Garritan CFX, its playability felt not quite as refined. Although I still hear the "muffled" effect in Pianoteq's sound, somehow it has become more acceptable to me. I think I've reached a level of contentment that I couldn't reach before, and, through exclusively practicing with Pianoteq, have grown content with its sound.
So, this thread caught my attention. To see what the fuss was about, I loaded up the Ant. Petrof 275 (demo version) and played it. And, enjoyed it. Unless there is some reason not to do it, I'm going to upgrade to 7.3. Hopefully, this will provide me the demo version of the new Ant. Petrof Mistral.
Originally Posted by peterws
I just got rid of Pianoteq 7.3 and replaced it with my previous 7.03 with some degree of sorrow. That new Petrof was great, and the voicing seems also to have been improved across the range. To the degree that I simply can't recognise the different instruments any more. I had 6 different instruments which sounded darn near the same. Good, but pointless. I'd rather have the imperfections such as they are, knowing that they'll still sound great recorded. Sigh. (shrug)
I'm surprised at this, peterws! I find the German Steinway D, the New York Steinway D, the Ant. Petrof 225 and the Bechstein sufficiently distinct to easily note the differences. My experience is admittedly with STAGE with no tweaking except for Output settings of:
With this minimal tweaking, the pianos sound sufficiently distinct that I do not consider them as sounding the same.
I wonder if your tweaking with the middle level version (I forget its name) has taken all the difference out of yours. Have you tried going back to their default, or near default, settings to see if you can like those sounds?
I am hearing enough difference that I am considering getting the new Petrof Mistral. I'm anxious to hear more demos of it on YouTube and to play its demo version in 7.3.
I just got rid of Pianoteq 7.3 and replaced it with my previous 7.03 with some degree of sorrow. That new Petrof was great, and the voicing seems also to have been improved across the range. To the degree that I simply can't recognise the different instruments any more. I had 6 different instruments which sounded darn near the same. Good, but pointless. I'd rather have the imperfections such as they are, knowing that they'll still sound great recorded. Sigh. (shrug)
I'm surprised at this, peterws! I find the German Steinway D, the New York Steinway D, the Ant. Petrof 225 and the Bechstein sufficiently distinct to easily note the differences. My experience is admittedly with STAGE with no tweaking except for Output settings of:
With this minimal tweaking, the pianos sound sufficiently distinct that I do not consider them as sounding the same.
I wonder if your tweaking with the middle level version (I forget its name) has taken all the difference out of yours. Have you tried going back to their default, or near default, settings to see if you can like those sounds?
I am hearing enough difference that I am considering getting the new Petrof Mistral. I'm anxious to hear more demos of it on YouTube and to play its demo version in 7.3.
My 7.3 came with factory defaults, strangely. But I just tweak resonances and tuning mainly to achieve a more natural sound. I'll no doubt try again, but my 7.03 at the moment is sound. I did love the Petrof Mistral though. Too much fiddling! Not enough work being done!
I would rate playability of Hammersmith Full much higher than Garritan CFX (but I own only Lite).
Ok, thanks for your input. Yesterday I listened to some demos of the Hammersmith and although it seems like a beautiful piano it sounds a bit bright to me. It's seems that they have a free version from time to time but that wasn't available at the moment. How would you describe it's general character?
Originally Posted by mmathew
Originally Posted by johanibraaten
Thank you, how does the Hammersmith and the Garritan CFX compare when it comes to playability? I've been looking at the VSL pianos but apparently they don't have binaural recordings. Can you (or anyone else) say how they compare when playing with headphones?
In short, though they are not true binaural recordings, they sound wonderful, but don't take my word as is. Expanding:-
- The VSL Synchron Pianos player has a multitude of configurable options including very intricate pan settings, for each mic. - Combine those settings with the correct close player mic selections (there are 3 of them). - Apply a selection of effects and reverbs, again, to each mic.
I am pretty confident by tweaking the settings, you can produce a sound that closely matches a binaural sample. I think it requires a lot of patience and experimentation.
Good to know. Yes, the VSL pianos seems like solid products. Can't decide which one to go for though:)
Originally Posted by CraiginNZ
I only have the free Hammersmith so can't speak to that instrument. The playability of the Garritan is really excellent, though; it's extremely responsive and immersive as a playing experience. I don't feel like it loses out in any way to Pianoteq, though I don't have the most sophisticated technique to put it to the test!
Thank you, the Garritan seems to be a hugely popular choice so I might give it a try. It's too bad there isn't many demo versions among the different VST choices.
Originally Posted by EB5AGV
I use VSL Bösendorfer Imperial quite a lot with headphones and can use it for hours without listening fatigue.
That sounds good. I'm leaning towards either the Imperial or the 280VC. I like the more intimate sound of the 280VC due to the smaller room but I think I prefer the sound of the piano itself with the imperial. Have you tried the different VSL options?
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
I’ve read about ‘flying cars’ on this forum, and as far as I’m concerned, the ‘title’ of that thread had nothing to do with flying nor with cars; so no, you’re not ‘off topic’ in my book!
The truth is that there’s only so much one can say about any specific topic (especially anything with ‘Pianoteq’ in the title) before it turns into a war of the worlds: “Pianoteq is good”; “Pianoteq sucks”; “it’s still not there”; “sampling is obsolete”, etc...
Then it gets nerdy and overly technical, and suddenly I’m reading about Drake’s equation, the Pythagorean theorem, and how Einstein’s theory of relativity negates modeling on the notion that, all things being equal, nothing can exceed the speed of light; therefore, it is impossible to calculate the exact position of a particle that is here but also there simultaneously.
“It’s just not possible scientifically, so it must be some form of spooky magic at a distance”.
I have both the 280VC (Full) and the Imperial (Standard) and I tend to use the Imperial quite a lot more. It sounds great both with speakers and headphones
Jose
Yamaha U3H Kawai VPC1 ...plus some other DPs, synths, controllers and VSTs
! I find the German Steinway D, the New York Steinway D, the Ant. Petrof 225 and the Bechstein sufficiently distinct to easily note the differences. My experience is admittedly with STAGE with no tweaking except for Output settings of:
So, this thread caught my attention. To see what the fuss was about, I loaded up the Ant. Petrof 275 (demo version) and played it. And, enjoyed it. Unless there is some reason not to do it, I'm going to upgrade to 7.3. Hopefully, this will provide me the demo version of the new Ant. Petrof Mistral.
The only reason folks may be hesitant to upgrade is if they have perfected their own custom presets or if they are in the middle of a recording project.
With major version updates like 7.3, instruments may be revoiced, and so custom presets are generally impacted. Even then, it's quite easy to switch back, so there is minimal risk.
Otherwise, there is simply no reason not to upgrade. The steady flow of improvements and progress are wonderful to behold.
I have to agree navindra about upgrading. Modartt might me making small progress but they are making progress. Now I have to find the pennies to buy the Petrof piano pack
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
I’ve read about ‘flying cars’ on this forum, and as far as I’m concerned, the ‘title’ of that thread had nothing to do with flying nor with cars; so no, you’re not ‘off topic’ in my book!
The truth is that there’s only so much one can say about any specific topic (especially anything with ‘Pianoteq’ in the title) before it turns into a war of the worlds: “Pianoteq is good”; “Pianoteq sucks”; “it’s still not there”; “sampling is obsolete”, etc...
Then it gets nerdy and overly technical, and suddenly I’m reading about Drake’s equation, the Pythagorean theorem, and how Einstein’s theory of relativity negates modeling on the notion that, all things being equal, nothing can exceed the speed of light; therefore, it is impossible to calculate the exact position of a particle that is here but also there simultaneously.
“It’s just not possible scientifically, so it must be some form of spooky magic at a distance”.
So no, you’re not off topic, but I digress!
You're very tolerant
I just curious about sampled library's for, if nothing else, educate myself for participating in the "modeling vs sampling debate" Now back to topic.
I've been playing the Petrof 284 Mistral for a couple of days now and I must say it's quite nice and rather different from the Ant. Petrof 275. The tone is clear and transparent and it has a very deep bass that is very solid but perhaps one could wish for the bass to "open up" with louder nuances. However I guess this is a Petrof characteristic and gives it a strong personality very different from Steinway or Yamaha. The treble is bright/light and singing. Over all a very nice instrument and a nice complement to the great Ant. Petrof.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
That’s what a two-week sabbatical in the Himalayas will do to you!
You see, the monks showed me the way, for I was lost and could not find the resort.
“I am lost and cannot find my way (to the resort), can you help me?”, I asked. The monks pointed at my heart -‘hello, I’m Pete’- as if asking “are you Pete?” I nodded, indicating that indeed I was the name-tag placed around my heart, and I said again, “but you see, I’m lost”.
The monks pointed again, but this time they pointed straight at the resort, as if saying, “you idiot, the resort is right in front of you”!
I blushed, took off my name-tag, and nodded again, but this time as a sign of appreciation to the monks for ‘showing me the way’.
I’ve never been the same since, and now, I am indeed a very tolerant man.
That’s what a two-week sabbatical in the Himalayas will do to you!
You see, the monks showed me the way, for I was lost and could not find the resort.
“I am lost and cannot find my way (to the resort), can you help me?”, I asked. The monks pointed at my heart -‘hello, I’m Pete’- as if asking “are you Pete?” I nodded, indicating that indeed I was the name-tag placed around my heart, and I said again, “but you see, I’m lost”.
The monks pointed again, but this time they pointed straight at the resort, as if saying, “you idiot, the resort is right in front of you”!
I blushed, took off my name-tag, and nodded again, but this time as a sign of appreciation to the monks for ‘showing me the way’.
I’ve never been the same since, and now, I am indeed a very tolerant man.
Kumbaya,
Pete (a.k.a. Ben Dover).
Where did I put my kleenex? This brought tears to my eyes
I heard the monks are now using Organteq when they practice chant music. Heard it from a monk who heard it from a monk who heard it from a monk.......
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
I think the monks are content with monophony. No organs necessary.
A man must love a thing very much if he practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practice it without any hope of doing it well. Such a man must love the toils of the work more than any other man can love the rewards of it. G. K. Chesterton
Just downloaded and played the new Petrof-284, based on Warm presets, only made a few quick adjustments. Wow, so elegant and comfortable piano sound, from bass to high, 3-Bands are very balanced. Btw, V7.3 can do lid-off in Mics setting. Will tweak it carefully to find the best way for me later.
I'm also enjoying the Petrof 284 Warm, after tweaking the velocity curve for my keyboard.
Later I will have to see if any other settings adjustments make it sound even better.
You see, how we’re never truly ‘off topic’ because it’s all, we’re all, interconnected!
We were less than six degrees of separation from ‘Monks and Organs’ to the ‘Delay Lama’. If that’s not prove that all people, things, and topics are only six degrees away from each other, and that all roads lead to Rome, then what is?
So the next time someone decides ‘they need to jump in’ to save the day from going ‘off topic’, we should all rally behind the monks and summon the Delay Lama!
I have Pianoteq Stage 7.2, and this thread convinced me to spend some time with the Ant. Petrof 225. I played it for a couple of days and liked it. So, today I upgraded to 7.3 and bought the Petrof pack to see how much better the Mistral is.
The Petrof Mistral seems different in kind from previous pianos from Pianoteq. To my ear, it is the first Pianoteq piano to come close to sampled sound. The muffled effect is largely gone. The piano sounds like it is in the same room as the player. The tone of the piano is pleasing. The bass is almost overpowering, and I'm going to have to refine my left hand control to play it well. However, the bass notes are very clear, there is no muddiness or booming to it. The upper registers, though somewhat bright, are not in any way disturbing. They are pretty. And, I do not hear the shrillness that used to bother me so much.
With the tremendous difference in sound, and the unusual timing of the Mistral's entry into the lineup, I wonder if this Mistral represents some new technological advance in Modartt's methodology, with the Mistral as their trial balloon. If this is some major technological leap forward, then there are likely good things to come for the rest of the lineup, and maybe for an expansion of their lineup into other piano brands.
I hope so! The Mistral is the most enjoyable Pianoteq experienced I've had.
I have Pianoteq Stage 7.2, and this thread convinced me to spend some time with the Ant. Petrof 225. I played it for a couple of days and liked it. So, today I upgraded to 7.3 and bought the Petrof pack to see how much better the Mistral is.
The Petrof Mistral seems different in kind from previous pianos from Pianoteq. To my ear, it is the first Pianoteq piano to come close to sampled sound. The muffled effect is largely gone. The piano sounds like it is in the same room as the player. The tone of the piano is pleasing. The bass is almost overpowering, and I'm going to have to refine my left hand control to play it well. However, the bass notes are very clear, there is no muddiness or booming to it. The upper registers, though somewhat bright, are not in any way disturbing. They are pretty. And, I do not hear the shrillness that used to bother me so much.
With the tremendous difference in sound, and the unusual timing of the Mistral's entry into the lineup, I wonder if this Mistral represents some new technological advance in Modartt's methodology, with the Mistral as their trial balloon. If this is some major technological leap forward, then there are likely good things to come for the rest of the lineup, and maybe for an expansion of their lineup into other piano brands.
I hope so! The Mistral is the most enjoyable Pianoteq experienced I've had.
I haven't bought it yet but I played around with the demo a lot, I tend to agree, this new one is way ahead of the other ones. It has some ringining in the treble notes, but a lot less annoying then previous pianos had. On most of them I had to tone that harshness down, but not for this one. If that paves the future for PT, I'm impressed.
I have Pianoteq Stage 7.2, and this thread convinced me to spend some time with the Ant. Petrof 225. I played it for a couple of days and liked it. So, today I upgraded to 7.3 and bought the Petrof pack to see how much better the Mistral is.
The Petrof Mistral seems different in kind from previous pianos from Pianoteq. To my ear, it is the first Pianoteq piano to come close to sampled sound. The muffled effect is largely gone. The piano sounds like it is in the same room as the player. The tone of the piano is pleasing. The bass is almost overpowering, and I'm going to have to refine my left hand control to play it well. However, the bass notes are very clear, there is no muddiness or booming to it. The upper registers, though somewhat bright, are not in any way disturbing. They are pretty. And, I do not hear the shrillness that used to bother me so much.
With the tremendous difference in sound, and the unusual timing of the Mistral's entry into the lineup, I wonder if this Mistral represents some new technological advance in Modartt's methodology, with the Mistral as their trial balloon. If this is some major technological leap forward, then there are likely good things to come for the rest of the lineup, and maybe for an expansion of their lineup into other piano brands.
I hope so! The Mistral is the most enjoyable Pianoteq experienced I've had.
I haven't bought it yet but I played around with the demo a lot, I tend to agree, this new one is way ahead of the other ones. It has some ringining in the treble notes, but a lot less annoying then previous pianos had. On most of them I had to tone that harshness down, but not for this one. If that paves the future for PT, I'm impressed.
I might be wrong here (usually am, I don't care much haha) but every time i've sat at an acoustic, the harshness is there often from those resonances. You regulate them with the pedal. That's why selective pedalling on an acoustic is a must wheras on a digital, one tends to play almost with it depressed. I fear Moddart may be departing fro its acoustic emulation to a more refined sound pleasing to its most vociferous critics. It's exactly what governments do. And look where it gets them!
I have Pianoteq Stage 7.2, and this thread convinced me to spend some time with the Ant. Petrof 225. I played it for a couple of days and liked it. So, today I upgraded to 7.3 and bought the Petrof pack to see how much better the Mistral is.
The Petrof Mistral seems different in kind from previous pianos from Pianoteq. To my ear, it is the first Pianoteq piano to come close to sampled sound. The muffled effect is largely gone. The piano sounds like it is in the same room as the player. The tone of the piano is pleasing. The bass is almost overpowering, and I'm going to have to refine my left hand control to play it well. However, the bass notes are very clear, there is no muddiness or booming to it. The upper registers, though somewhat bright, are not in any way disturbing. They are pretty. And, I do not hear the shrillness that used to bother me so much.
With the tremendous difference in sound, and the unusual timing of the Mistral's entry into the lineup, I wonder if this Mistral represents some new technological advance in Modartt's methodology, with the Mistral as their trial balloon. If this is some major technological leap forward, then there are likely good things to come for the rest of the lineup, and maybe for an expansion of their lineup into other piano brands.
I hope so! The Mistral is the most enjoyable Pianoteq experienced I've had.
I haven't bought it yet but I played around with the demo a lot, I tend to agree, this new one is way ahead of the other ones. It has some ringining in the treble notes, but a lot less annoying then previous pianos had. On most of them I had to tone that harshness down, but not for this one. If that paves the future for PT, I'm impressed.
I might be wrong here (usually am, I don't care much haha) but every time i've sat at an acoustic, the harshness is there often from those resonances. You regulate them with the pedal. That's why selective pedalling on an acoustic is a must wheras on a digital, one tends to play almost with it depressed. I fear Moddart may be departing fro its acoustic emulation to a more refined sound pleasing to its most vociferous critics. It's exactly what governments do. And look where it gets them!
I don't know, my parents own two grands and new Yamaha silent grand and a C.Bechstein from 1930, both don't exhibit this metallic harshness that is common in the treble of most PT instruments. Personally I really like PT, but at this point I'm pretty sure I could find the PT recording 10/10 times from recordings because of this exact sound because it's so uniqute to PT and I have never heard that sound in any recording before.
I don't know, my parents own two grands and new Yamaha silent grand and a C.Bechstein from 1930, both don't exhibit this metallic harshness that is common in the treble of most PT instruments. Personally I really like PT, but at this point I'm pretty sure I could find the PT recording 10/10 times from recordings because of this exact sound because it's so uniqute to PT and I have never heard that sound in any recording before.
Maybe that is what causes me acoustic fatigue... In fact I use to add the SOFT setting EQ in PTQ so the higher frequencies get reduced
Jose
Yamaha U3H Kawai VPC1 ...plus some other DPs, synths, controllers and VSTs
You guys are so sensitive, “acoustic fatigue”. We need a little harshness in our lives because riding around on a velvety-soft carpet may feel good, but it doesn’t prepare you for a rough/harsh landing!
So get off that flying carpet and walk amongst the peasants like yours truly!
Have you ever chopped wood till your fingers bled red? Or have you even milked a cow that wants no milking? Perhaps you’ve never had to shave a sheep and then leave it exposed to the elements so that someone else gets to wear -that sheep- as a coat, but I’ve had to do that and more.
I’ve grown and picked the food; I’ve chopped the wood; I’ve slaughtered the pig, and I’ve slept under the stars with nothing but a shovel and my imagination.
What have y’all done; other than fly around on that velvety-soft flying carpet?
You guys are so sensitive, “acoustic fatigue”. We need a little harshness in our lives because riding around on a velvety-soft carpet may feel good, but it doesn’t prepare you for a rough/harsh landing!
So get off that flying carpet and walk amongst the peasants like yours truly!
Have you ever chopped wood till your fingers bled red? Or have you even milked a cow that wants no milking? Perhaps you’ve never had to shave a sheep and then leave it exposed to the elements so that someone else gets to wear -that sheep- as a coat, but I’ve had to do that and more.
I’ve grown and picked the food; I’ve chopped the wood; I’ve slaughtered the pig, and I’ve slept under the stars with nothing but a shovel and my imagination.
What have y’all done; other than fly around on that velvety-soft flying carpet?
I advise: prepare for a rough landing!
You have no clue on everyone else life. Being sensitive to some kind of sounds has nothing to do with the rest of our lives. I won't enter on personal details, but for sure my life has not been a walking on a roses garden.
Keep on with your life and let us do the same.
Jose
Yamaha U3H Kawai VPC1 ...plus some other DPs, synths, controllers and VSTs
I might be wrong here (usually am, I don't care much haha) but every time i've sat at an acoustic, the harshness is there often from those resonances. You regulate them with the pedal. That's why selective pedalling on an acoustic is a must wheras on a digital, one tends to play almost with it depressed. I fear Moddart may be departing fro its acoustic emulation to a more refined sound pleasing to its most vociferous critics. It's exactly what governments do. And look where it gets them!
I don't know, my parents own two grands and new Yamaha silent grand and a C.Bechstein from 1930, both don't exhibit this metallic harshness that is common in the treble of most PT instruments. Personally I really like PT, but at this point I'm pretty sure I could find the PT recording 10/10 times from recordings because of this exact sound because it's so uniqute to PT and I have never heard that sound in any recording before.
Pianos have a steel frame, strings, and in some cases, a steel sound box with holes in it as well as the wooden thing behind the strings which sits quietly in position to make it all look nice. One might complain to the manufacturers of your parents pianos as to why they're deprived of such metallica. Wood and steel is an excellent combination! Hard and soft, a celebration of contrasts!
Have you ever looked a chicken in the eye right before you killed it (for dinner)?
Do you have any idea how that feels; to kill a chicken that you raised as one of your own; a chick that once hatched in front of me and all but called me ‘daddy’?
To then have to kill that little chicken that I loved so much because things are so rough that we must eat our own (family members). Yes, that chicken was like a son to me, yet I ate it.
But you are correct, it is wrong for me to assume that y’all have had it easy, but one thing I can say for sure, you ain’t had it worse than Pete!
Have you ever looked a chicken in the eye right before you killed it (for dinner)?
Do you have any idea how that feels; to kill a chicken that you raised as one of your own; a chick that once hatched in front of me and all but called me ‘daddy’?
To then have to kill that little chicken that I loved so much because things are so rough that we must eat our own (family members). Yes, that chicken was like a son to me, yet I ate it.
But you are correct, it is wrong for me to assume that y’all have had it easy, but one thing I can say for sure, you ain’t had it worse than Pete!
Really from Pianoteq to Chickens this is really getting to be a strange turn of events...
How were the eggs by the way?
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
You have no clue on everyone else life. Being sensitive to some kind of sounds has nothing to do with the rest of our lives. I won't enter on personal details, but for sure my life has not been a walking on a roses garden.
Keep on with your life and let us do the same.
Next time work through the rose garden not on it please
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
Thanks a lot for undoing decades of therapy to deal with my guilt for killing chicken little; ironically enough, I also butchered cows, pigs, sheep, and rabbits, yet never felt the least bit of guilt. I suppose we can sometimes be selective as to what accounts for ‘animal cruelty’.
Here I am, crying over a long-dead and eaten chicken whilst I chow down half a’ cow. Oh well, so much for integrity!
You have no clue on everyone else life. Being sensitive to some kind of sounds has nothing to do with the rest of our lives. I won't enter on personal details, but for sure my life has not been a walking on a roses garden.
Keep on with your life and let us do the same.
Next time work through the rose garden not on it please
Try to say it in Spanish and we will be at the same level
Jose
Yamaha U3H Kawai VPC1 ...plus some other DPs, synths, controllers and VSTs
You have no clue on everyone else life. Being sensitive to some kind of sounds has nothing to do with the rest of our lives. I won't enter on personal details, but for sure my life has not been a walking on a roses garden.
Keep on with your life and let us do the same.
Next time work through the rose garden not on it please
Try to say it in Spanish and we will be at the same level
Got me there.
Anyway I do think Pianoteq has gotten way better since I brought it 2015 I believe. I heard the ringing in the early versions say 1-3 and couldn't jump on board. For me the newest version PT7 has been a joy to play.
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
Couldn't agree more. I pulled the trigger last night, and stayed up way past my bedtime playing Mistral into the wee hours. Debussy and Ravel with the Gentle preset, oh my goodness. Unfortunately, as Pianoteq continually gets better, I become more dissatisfied with my current controller (Yamaha P-515). It never ends, does it?
The Petrof Mistral seems different in kind from previous pianos from Pianoteq. To my ear, it is the first Pianoteq piano to come close to sampled sound. The muffled effect is largely gone. The piano sounds like it is in the same room as the player. The tone of the piano is pleasing. The bass is almost overpowering, and I'm going to have to refine my left hand control to play it well. However, the bass notes are very clear, there is no muddiness or booming to it. The upper registers, though somewhat bright, are not in any way disturbing. They are pretty. And, I do not hear the shrillness that used to bother me so much.
With the tremendous difference in sound, and the unusual timing of the Mistral's entry into the lineup, I wonder if this Mistral represents some new technological advance in Modartt's methodology, with the Mistral as their trial balloon. If this is some major technological leap forward, then there are likely good things to come for the rest of the lineup, and maybe for an expansion of their lineup into other piano brands.
I hope so! The Mistral is the most enjoyable Pianoteq experienced I've had.
Originally Posted by Bobby Simons
Couldn't agree more. I pulled the trigger last night, and stayed up way past my bedtime playing Mistral into the wee hours. Debussy and Ravel with the Gentle preset, oh my goodness.
Oh... wow. It appears that Modartt has a hit here.
I used the Mistral for a chord-heavy practice session yesterday as someone suggested and quite enjoyed it. It's a lot of fun!
However, I do feel that there are improvements across the board in Pianoteq 7.3. The NY Steinway D is still my default and probably the next one I will do something with.
I wonder how long it takes and how much it costs to make a new model like this with branding stamp of approval.
I like the overall sound of the Mistral, but I still prefer the general clarity of the NY Steinway D.
But then, I've never killed a chicken, so... what do I know? Cluck, cluck, brrrrrruck...
"I think it's the excitement only a free man can feel; a free man at the start of a long journey, whose conclusion is uncertain." -- Morgan Freeman's character, "Red", in The Shawshank Redemption
I've been looking this over and their rate of progress and innovation is fairly impressive... steadily adding new instruments, improvements, and new features over the months. Maybe someone could chart this.
The Mistral may indeed be a tipping point for adoption. It will be interesting to see how they navigate the iOS challenges.
Is there any other notable player in the piano world that innovates like this? Perhaps VSL -- they seem to announce a new Bösendorfer every few months.
I'm back on 7.3 now; don't know what the problem was but it's gone by itself. All my instruments retain their characteristics, most are improved, but the new Petrof to me is the best of the best, particularly when it plays through the P515 speakers. They sound like good 'uns. But you can't de-tune this too much and widening the unisons affects the upper notes greatly.
It’s only a matter of time for a hybrid powered by Pianoteq to become a reality.
I’m betting on a Petrof; being that they already built a beautiful ‘controller’ with a grand piano action a while back. All they have to do is revisit that design, make a couple of improvements (optical sensors, speakers), throw the new Pianoteq Mistral in there, and call it a day.
It’s only a matter of time for a hybrid powered by Pianoteq to become a reality.
I’m betting on a Petrof; being that they already built a beautiful ‘controller’ with a grand piano action a while back. All they have to do is revisit that design, make a couple of improvements (optical sensors, speakers), throw the new Pianoteq Mistral in there, and call it a day.
Y'know, they could also take a genuine grand action, and make a compact version by folding it . . . .
I'm having another look at Pianoteq too. I think it sounds much better.
I have still installed the last 6.x version along the 7.3. I have just thought an easy way to compare, using the MIDI demo files they provide and rendering with both engines.... Weekend work ahead!
Jose
Yamaha U3H Kawai VPC1 ...plus some other DPs, synths, controllers and VSTs
It’s only a matter of time for a hybrid powered by Pianoteq to become a reality.
I’m betting on a Petrof; being that they already built a beautiful ‘controller’ with a grand piano action a while back. All they have to do is revisit that design, make a couple of improvements (optical sensors, speakers), throw the new Pianoteq Mistral in there, and call it a day.
Y'know, they could also take a genuine grand action, and make a compact version by folding it . . . .
It makes more sense to have both a folded and a straight version, but what I really want is a version that shrinks to the size of a keychain for easy transportation, and then unravels on demand by means of a smart device:
“Alexa, shrink piano for transportation”. “Sure, would you like driving directions?” “No, thanks, Alexa”! “Now beginning shrinking process; please step aside for safety”. “What could I ever do without you, Alexa”.
Who takes the crown of VST Hoarder? I know there is a thread about how many keyboards one owns. But who is the ultimate VST Hoarder?
EB5? EPW?
A man must love a thing very much if he practices it without any hope of fame or money, but even practice it without any hope of doing it well. Such a man must love the toils of the work more than any other man can love the rewards of it. G. K. Chesterton
Who takes the crown of VST Hoarder? I know there is a thread about how many keyboards one owns. But who is the ultimate VST Hoarder?
EB5? EPW?
Not me for sure in piano VSTi's. I have realized I didn't need that many for what I do. Plus Pianoteq works for me and since I don't really do solo piano recording for the most part there are quite a lot to choose from. IK-multimedia Sampletank 4 Max has some really nice pianos. Plus I have Truepianos and in a mix with a few other instruments seems to work for me. It also could be that I have my set-up the way I like it in Cakewalk and so why change On my wish list is more synths type vsti's to be honest. I realized I am a okay pianist but enjoy messing with keyboards and trying out new sounds more. I remember once at church practice I didn't change the patch and spooky alien sounds came out. They thought I did it on purpose, but I didn't, that sound was for my daughters halloween/birthday party. This was over 10 years ago.
Pianoteq is nice to pull up when I'm playing my Casio PX5s as the sustain on the Casio's pianos are not that great. It nice to have variety but I rather spend the little time I have at music right now playing then loading up a new mega piano library.
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
I've never had a 'puter that'd handle a sampled vst, so, being mega-mean I've never been tempted. Whether Pianoteq plays well or otherwisw, they all sound great on recording, so I never record off the piano now. No point.
Plus Pianoteq lets me imagine playing on some vintage old pianos too. I'm a realist and figure I won't get to play those old vintage pianos in the flesh. Cool that Pianoteq lets me.
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
Plus Pianoteq lets me imagine playing on some vintage old pianos too. I'm a realist and figure I won't get to play those old vintage pianos in the flesh. Cool that Pianoteq lets me.
Maybe. But I wouldn't want to play them in real life unless . . . . I used to have an 1856 Broadway Boudoir Grand. Straight strung, a very simple action, it had a soft tone, not a harsh one as depicted in PT. We used to put my little lad under the thing and send him to sleep . . . . .
Barely touched it with work plus I was on some zoom meetings with my daughter for college. She will be starting next fall. Looking at housing etc..... Plus my younger daughter is a junior and we have been looking at colleges too. Yesterday she had a call with one college she is interested in and we ending talking about it in the evening. She got lots of information from a department head of the major she is interested in. She was on the call for 40 minutes and she said the lady didn't rush and gave her things to think about. Also told her she should talk to another department about a minor she is interested in too. Funny thing this university is where the older one is going. We went down last year to visit for both of them and they both like the campus. We told them it is fine by us. We just don't want them to be room-mates. They need to sprout there wings a little bit. We are happy they are very close and get along with each other.
Live gets in the way of our hobbies but I'm not complaining
Hopefully next week I'll have more time to check it out. The little bit I played it I like it!
P.S. If you haven't tried PianoTeq in a few years go demo it. IMHO it has really improved.
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
Plus Pianoteq lets me imagine playing on some vintage old pianos too. I'm a realist and figure I won't get to play those old vintage pianos in the flesh. Cool that Pianoteq lets me.
Maybe. But I wouldn't want to play them in real life unless . . . . I used to have an 1856 Broadway Boudoir Grand. Straight strung, a very simple action, it had a soft tone, not a harsh one as depicted in PT. We used to put my little lad under the thing and send him to sleep . . . . .
I guess I have been in some museums that have these old pianos and wonder how they play for one. Plus my Aunt had some old baroque music that we both played together and that is what I use the older Pianoteq pianos for to relive playing with her. I miss her, for she was the person growing up I could always talk to about anything. Plus she was the one who gave me my love for piano
All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
![[Linked Image]](https://forum.pianoworld.com//gallery/42/full/21177.png)
Start saving your money for the 4TB Hard drive to hold it 
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/Uploads/files/Joplinbadgetiny.jpg)
" 
![[Linked Image]](https://hauptwerk-organ.com/wp-content/uploads/ModernWillisConsole16.jpg)
condescendingly
