Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Pianoteq 7 has now been released

In the first clips I found version 7 to sound more like a piano. On the second clips I didn't pay enough attention, I suppose and I was also wondering if A is always the same version and B the other. And then the clips were over. But I suppose the same difference is there now that I know which one is which.

I don't find words to describe the difference. But it's there.

I hear a difference between 6 and 7 with the model D (an important enhancement), but not with other pianos.

As a stage user, I am not concerned by the piano morphing.

I also find it clearly audible with the Blüthner which was particularly plasticky before.

Seems that Pianoteq is still splits the minds. I got the upgrade for free and did a few tests, but for my pianos it's so far hard to tell a difference. For your convinience I exported the whole Schubert Sonata in B-Flat-Major first with Pianoteq 6 and then 7. I used the DG Bechstein Recording 3 preset on both and didn't change anything.

Personally I think P7 sounds a little "better" especially in the loud parts with more treble notes, but decide for yourself:

P6:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18vOLV37swm36hh1PrE-iJ1gSN5A_wHQL/view?usp=sharing

P7:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EmUg8ZA5_1ik508XG--s72V4IbG4MiV9/view?usp=sharing

Overall I would say soundwise the changes are small, but noticable. The new options for morphing and layering are a big deal though (at least for me). I didn't have any issue with the sound to begin with though. I would say: If you hated it before, you will hate it now. If you liked it before, you will still like it now.

(The MIDI for the Sonata is from the Piano E Competion files but unfortuately I don't know by who anymore :()

How many layers does it do?

Three, and morphing & layering are one or the other. So either morphing or layering. The morphing feature is more impressive to me though, layering is pretty standard, but creating a hybrid between a piano and a harpsichord (or anything) is interesting.

Edit: No wait it isn't! You can morph something, flatten it, then layer it, or morph it again. Damn, that is a powerful feature, I have to say. The morph between an electric piano and a DG Bechstein for example sounds really sweet. Can't wait to play around more with that.

OK a few hours playing yesterday and another today. DT770s off a Scarlett 4i4. Some opinions:

1) The Bechstein is still very much the best on offer.

2) I had really hoped they'd fix the Steinway Ds in 7, but they really haven't. I'm still open to it being huge user error on my part, but they just sound so muddled. The best way I can describe it is that it's as if I was listening to the piano from the corridoor outside the room, and with a wollen jumper around my head. It's not crisp and clear, it's very damped - muted highs, messy mids - and very muddy; I constantly feel like I want to get closer to the piano, open the lid, and take the blanket out.

Keybender: thanks for the clips. I guessed correctly.

I have installed it myself and the NY Steinway D (Classical) is better to my ears than any of the previous Steinway D presets. Blüthner is also better. I am not sure I can hear a difference with the Bechstein. Overall it's improved (significantly to my ears) but it still lacks the body/resonance of the best VSTs (Vienna VSL and Garritan CFX in my case). I must say that your bass equalization improves that relative to my attempts.

I think from PT's POV, adding features like this is probably bigger thing than sound update. One of the benefits of modern sampling is the ability to create huge sound combinations of 4 to 8 layers on many boards.

Also, seemless sound switching is a massive bonus for musicians handling live sets where glitches would be very noticeable (presumably why 1970's musicians had racks of keyboards).

If Pianoteq can keep improving the layering functionality and keep adding more and more instruments, I can see a time where they could potentially offer a fully modeled solution - either built into a board, or released as a custom sound module.

In some ways, the drive to evolve the sound quality is a limited strategy in terms of scope (and maybe the resources required to boost significant improvements won't be covered by extra sales), but creating more sounds and replicating conventional digital piano functions would eventually pay off, if the available market increases.

This is exactly the impression I've had for years, at least as far back as version 4 ...... although I've described in reverse. That is, it's as though the piano were in the corridor or the next room.

The thing is: the people who don't like the sound of Pianoteq are probably not going to start to like it, no matter what they do. From a business perspective it's better to focus on the people who like the sound anyway and give them more options to use the product then a Don Quichotte style quest against personal taste.

As for soundquality, keeping the piano brands happy is probably more important then the customers, because more people will be brought in by the Steinway name then the actual sound of the piano.

People who love Pianoteq have been swearing it's the most realistic piano emulation ever in this universe since at least version 3 or 4 (some from the very beginning). There's nothing to improve for them.

Not all people are either full-hater or full-lover.

I have found that the Bechstein, Petrof, Steingraeber were quite well done and it was a pity the Model D was not at this level. Now it is fixed.

That's an interesting point.

Thing that strikes me about models: they are always limited by the variables encompassed, and more importantly, those that aren't. Also, when you make a model and it's awful, would you not then ask: "What tweaks can we to make to get the best out of it?"

So maybe what you are playing is a compromised concept, and for now we should accept it for what advantages it gives.

You're going to notice the glitches in the matrix so to speak. Sampling experts have had decades more experience in developing techniques to cover up those inconsistencies---both in sound replication and expressive control---but as soon as you hear a real acoustic piano, IMO even the best VST sounds off.

One of the best models in existence is the standard model for particle physics (in regards to what it does explain), yet there are so many things it gets wrong, and the search for theory tweaks or replacement theories is long and exhausting. It's not like any up coming update to this model is going to resolve all its issues either.

Naturally, modelling is theoretically more promising than sampling ie, when researchers better define the system they are studying to the extent that it closely matches reality. It could be a long long time before that happens.

Sure, I agree. But there's no homogenous dispersion either People still tend to be siloed into two camps. Those who generally like it and use it on regular basis. And those who generally dislike it and tend to not use it, despite giving it chances with each new version.

I don't think we've seen (m)any converts over time.

In terms of converts, does PT offer a genuine advantage regarding replicating the acoustic piano. I've heard folk say that they find it harder to play due to if being more dynamically discerning. If that's so, maybe it's a better practice tool than a performance tool.

I would be such a convert though. I tried pianoteq around version 4 (I think) and didn’t get along with the sound. When version 6 was released I gave it a new shot and I really connected with the Steinway B, but that was also really the only instrument in pianoteq I liked. After that I’ve purchased the Steingraeber and the Petroff and I like them too, especially the Steingraeber. Now I mostly use pianoteq but also use the sampled internal sound of the N1 which I also like (except for the string resonance behaviour) The bottom line is however that it gives me the opportunity to switch between some great, completely different instruments in a quite convincing way. I’ve yet to try pianoteq 7.

A nice (and as always on Guy's channel, funny) real-world use of Pianoteq 7:

I recall reading someone mixed PT with their N1X internal CFX and felt the resulting combo was superior to either on their own.

Are you saying the result was more than the sum of its parts?