I would like to be able to change the metronome tempo with one click and drag. Right now I have to go into a "Metronome settings" window. And/or I would like to be able to increase/decrease the tempo with a keystroke (maybe you can already do this?)
Just a small thing that would improve my practicing satisfaction!
I'd like to see variable damper action controlled by release velocity when sustain pedal is not engaged. When release velocity is high (staccato), damper behaves as it is right now, but when the velocity is low, the sound should cut off a little slower. The sound that I'm looking for sounds like a decaying envelope of low-pass filter and amplitude.
I'd like to see variable damper action controlled by release velocity when sustain pedal is not engaged. When release velocity is high (staccato), damper behaves as it is right now, but when the velocity is low, the sound should cut off a little slower. The sound that I'm looking for sounds like a decaying envelope of low-pass filter and amplitude.
ditto
I agree with Jake about the option to make sort of wordpad Notes... (from a post back in september)
Also for the description of the piano it would be great having that - and if that could be saved with the FXP you could make a short description of what the FXP is about...
Also being able to copy settings from one FXP to another would help - I would like to be able to try settings that I came up with with another basic piano sound - now all the settings change as well... so when I changed settings to a Grand C2 concert and then want to apply those settings to a Bechstein I'd as a basis to work from again I would now have to write down my settings first (correct me when I'm wrong)...
cheers
Hans
oops - reading the FAQ would be the best starting point so it seems ahem - and probably the manual as well, bu that's the way it goes... just dive in and play... anyway I found the use of the 'shift' button in the FAQ to keep the settings.. sorry...
cheers
Hans
-User defined/recallable EQ and velocity curves as well as bypass switches for both.
I confirm: the "standard" output level of Pianoteq is a bit high, you can easily go into saturation/distorsion/cracks if you play fortissimo. Tested on 4 differents souncards, no difference. Just set the output level 3 or 6 dB lower. (For those who are concerned, it will still leave you with 31 bit resolution instead of 32, FAR more than our ears can perceive !)
Please confirm if you got the same as mine:
I got cracks if play fortíssimo, like speaker cracks (similar to the cracks of when we connected something when the speakers alread ONN), while using the Stand Alone version if raise volume a little. But in Cubase plug-in I can raise the volume to get even louder than Stand Alone, but without cracks.
Can you check if you got the same in your system?
Regards
no, I get exactly to the same level with the stand alone or the VST version before overload occurs... I think it can be related to your/my sound card...
in a real piano, the low pitched notes are made by only one real string. But this One string is a bit special because it has a big diameter.
But in Pianoteq, the differents diameters could not be simulated, because, even if it's a physical model, it's not a at the moleculary scale ! ( for that, must have a Core 450 Quadra Hepta processors..., not in 2007 so )
So that, in Pianoteq, the sound of low pitched notes should be modelised with 3 strings as well as the others ones.
But Philippe said me that it would need very much more realtime computing, because much more harmonics (partials) to be runned together.
So i put again my demand :
to add an option for the final mixing with 3 strings per note in low pitch, and so on.
( An idea : a special box should remember the options between realtime playing, and final mixing, with the same instrument FXP. )
... because for now, the low notes still sounds a bit "clavecin".
cslevine:
You can get a lot more presence and focus on the fundamental and near fundamentals in the lower octaves if you:
1. Use several instances of Pianoteq in a vsti host that lets you create keyboard splits, so you can create settings for the bass that don't affect the middle and upper registers.
2. Spend some time experimenting with combinations of hammer hardness and velocity slope settings. Getting the right combination can be tricky.
3. Reduce all of the parameters that can contribute to what I call fuzz--the accumulation of nearby frequencies that obscure the fundamental: the global resonance, the sympathetic resonance, the quadratic effect, and on the Options menu, the full sympathetic resonance. Then use the other controls to get the sound to as close as you can come to what you like. Then try adding back in just one or two of the parameters you cut (the global resonance, etc), in very small increments. (In other words, proceed as though you were editing a multisample, removing the reverb and everything else that might obscure the sound of the actual samples.)
4. If the sound is still bright, remember the Cutoff and the Q setting for reducing upper partials. And maybe increase the lower even partials and try various unison detunings.
5. Also try radical eq cuts in the upper frequencies and boosts around the frequencies you want to bring out. Doing so may seem almost unethical, since we've all been taught that extensive eq'ing usually means that something else is wrong, but here, we're not working with a recording that needs fixing. We're just reducing or increasing the amplitude of sine waves.
Hope this helps. If not, try posting a wave file of the results you get in the Files section of this forum and then speak of what's wrong with the sound in the forum here. (You might also try posting a wave file or mp3 of a bass sound that you want to emulate--just one or two notes, and then see what we can all do to try to emulate it.)
Something else that would be nice: some kind of spectrometer that would let us see the frequencies as we hit notes. If it took up too much cpu, it could be turned off. This feature would let see the timbral effects of each edit we make as we make it. Wouldn't be useful for playing, but instead would be valuable for editing. We could use it just while playing individual notes, making changes to get the sound that we want.
It might be an overlay on the current EQ graph?
Something else that would be nice: some kind of spectrometer that would let us see the frequencies as we hit notes.
a nice, convenient and free plug-in that shows you the spectrum:
http://ag-works.net/default.asp?page=plugins.sg1
Asking for too much too soon, but: The more I work with editing instruments, the more I want more control over the parameters in the Design window and the Spectrum profile and some way to control the modulation of each element by another.
1. For all of these parameters, I for one want envelopes and velocity scaling controls. Not just knobs, but instead a display like that in the Velocity to midi level window. We could then control things such as how long the sympathetic resonance lasted (with an envelope) and the degree to which it was present and changed with increases in velocity (with a velocity scaling window). Having these same controls over the cutoff, the Q, global resonance, and the quadratic effect would be great.
Having envelopes and velocity scaling windows for the Spectrum profile would also greatly increase the ability to shape the sound. We could change the rate at which partials died and the extent to which their amplitude increased with velocity increases. Too much control? Maybe. And yet, and yet....
2. Some way (a modulation matrix?) to allow control over the degree to which any one element magnified or reduced any other. Now, for example, using a high Global Resonance setting creates too strong a wash of sound when the pedal is down. Would be good to be able to modulate things so that pressing the pedal down increased or reduced the contribution of the Global Resonance setting by a user-controllable degree. Similarly, the Full Sustain Resonance sounds great when I create many presets, but when I press the pedal down, it's stronger than I want, so I'm forced to shut it off for pedal up playing, too. With a matrix, we, and the developers, could better calibrate the sounds we want. We might be able to assign literally any one element as a source, along with velocity and pedal down, to control any other element as the destination.
(About the spectral display: Using another VST for viewing the spectrum is good, since it lets us turn it off easily, etc. However, having one inside Pianoteq would have advantages: if the display was an overlay on the EQ display, editing there would be much simpler, since we could see the actual frequencies as we played and as we made EQ adjustments have a more immediate sense of affecting the sound. Not an important request, really. The feature would just be a convenience.)
Having put some thought into what I really want:
9) New Product! Plucked keyboards. Then we could have the Harpischord, Spinet, Virginal, perhaps even the Clavichord (although I suppose this is more of a Piano/hammer like instrument)
This is a long and interesting wish list / feature request list !
Here some more requests for this list:
1. I would like to add an important feature to me, but maybe one that is difficult to simulate: Historical fortepianos have less tension on the strings. Strings can even be broken by hitting to hard. Liszt was famous for breaking pianos. The answer was an ever more solidly built colossus of a piano -- the piano as we know it today should rather be called 'forte' than 'piano' ;-) .
However, when you do not break strings, but only challenge them, the strings slightly 'jump' on their bridge, which gives a sound similar to a guitar, but, of course, you still hear the hammer. I like this sound of a low-tension string that is being challenged, because it adds accent to a particular note. You cannot simulate this on a modern piano, you just get a louder volume. But loudness is not the essence of this feature. It is rather an intensive, accentuated note.
2. I would also like to see an improvement of sympathetic resonance. Or maybe I have to experiment more with what is already there in PIANOTEQ. An increasing level of this feature would include the effects of duplex scale and Aliquot system -- in my opinion different degrees of the same feature.
3. Olverlaying is a technique of using two (or more) instances of pianoteq, with different configurations, at the same time. In my opinion this helps making PIANOTEQ sound more natural. Overlaying can be achieved by using a program like Steinberg's V-STack. I would like to see the pianoteq software allowing at least two different instances of the virtual piano at the same time. The advantage would be an optimized software that would reduce CPU-load even more and save the CPU for resonance effects etc.
I'm posting too much, lately, but only because I've had more time to experiment with Pianoteq. So, another request:
Control over what are often called subharmonics, the octaves and fifths below the fundamental. Would be best if they responded to velocity. This control could take the form of additional sliders in the spectrum profile of the Voicing panel. (-1, -2,...?)
How about an AU- plugin-option? And maybe VST?
Especially on Mac there are hardly any 'small' players for plugins.. I use LogicPro but when I just want to play without the need for recording I use the Pianoteq stand-alone version... But especially now with the CP80 the need comes for extra plugins for chorus, delay etc.
Would it be possible to add a AU-plugin option into the Pianoteq stand-alone player or would that be such a load on the program that it's going to affect the sound?
cheers
Hans
Hi Pianoteq
After the new CP80 add-on i i'm even more happy with Pianoteq :-)
The CP80 is so great !
What i would really like if it's possible is if you could make a sort of "random" button that would make a small pitch change to all the strings independently to get them slightly off tune and a slider to control how much the random off-tune should be.
I know the unison width control, but i would like it more random as in a real piano where the strings naturally get's and often is slightly out of tune with each other.
This and a upright model is on the top on my wishlist.
The sound from an old used and out of tune upright piano is sooo sweet and melancholy.
Ole Jeppesen
After the new CP80 add-on i i'm even more happy with Pianoteq :-)
The CP80 is so great !What i would really like if it's possible is if you could make a sort of "random" button that would make a small pitch change to all the strings independently to get them slightly off tune and a slider to control how much the random off-tune should be.
I know the unison width control, but i would like it more random as in a real piano where the strings naturally get's and often is slightly out of tune with each other.
This and a upright model is on the top on my wishlist.
The sound from an old used and out of tune upright piano is sooo sweet and melancholy.Ole Jeppesen
Both these +1. There's a certain point of out-of-tune that's not unison width and is very sweet (this is before it becomes oversweet). And, on my old upright, it's the best sound of all.
how about a programmable shortcut-list for FXP settings...
In the list of recently loaded FXPs now the last 10 have a shortcut but if we would be able to 'program' such a list we could have our own preset-list of FXPs in any order, and assigned to shortcuts of our liking...
I realize that v2.x is already out, but I don't see any other feature request thread, so I figure I'll post here. Anyways, I am a recently registered user of pianoteq, and so far, I'm loving it. So far I have only found one very minor annoyance with the software, which is with the standalone app.... it would be very nice if the app remembered the last patch settings and restored them on launch, rather than defaulting to the Grand C2 chamber patch. Obviously, this behavior should not exist in the AU/VST plugin, but I think it makes sense for the standalone app and should be quite easy to implement.
Sqook:
If you use the free Cantabile lite and load the vsti version of PianoTeq into it, it will recall your last settings when you open it by default. (You can also turn this feature off.) Takes a minute to download and set up the midi driver and audio driver, but once you have it set up, it loads fast and does just want you want. Much faster than a full sequencer and it takes up little RAM\cpu. You just open it instead of the standalone PianoTeq. It immediately loads Pianteq with the last settings you saved.
But yes, it would be great to have this option in the PianoTeq standalone, too.
Sqook:
If you use the free Cantabile lite and load the vsti version of PianoTeq into it, it will recall your last settings when you open it by default. (You can also turn this feature off.) Takes a minute to download and set up the midi driver and audio driver, but once you have it set up, it loads fast and does just want you want. Much faster than a full sequencer and it takes up little RAM\cpu. You just open it instead of the standalone PianoTeq. It immediately loads Pianteq with the last settings you saved.
But yes, it would be great to have this option in the PianoTeq standalone, too.
Well, aside from the fact that I'm a mac user and this is a win-only application, the point of using the standalone app is not to have to open a full VST/AU host. I use logic/live for regular MIDI sequencing with the pianoteq plug in my compositions, but when I want to practice for a bit, I would prefer to use the standalone app... no need to have a bunch of other stuff running when all I want to do is tickle the ivories for a bit.
BTW, savihost is a better standalone VST host for win32, since it allows you to rename it to host a single, specific plugin...
which is with the standalone app.... it would be very nice if the app remembered the last patch settings and restored them on launch, rather than defaulting to the Grand C2 chamber patch.
this can be done: go to Files->Preferences and check "Automatically reload parameters on startup"
Luc Henrion wrote:I confirm: the "standard" output level of Pianoteq is a bit high, you can easily go into saturation/distorsion/cracks if you play fortissimo. Tested on 4 differents souncards, no difference. Just set the output level 3 or 6 dB lower. (For those who are concerned, it will still leave you with 31 bit resolution instead of 32, FAR more than our ears can perceive !)
Please confirm if you got the same as mine:
I got cracks if play fortíssimo, like speaker cracks (similar to the cracks of when we connected something when the speakers alread ONN), while using the Stand Alone version if raise volume a little. But in Cubase plug-in I can raise the volume to get even louder than Stand Alone, but without cracks.
Can you check if you got the same in your system?
Regards
I have noticed the same problem although I haven't checked the Cubase/ standalone difference.
It occurred the first time on stage when someone else was playing it. I felt really stupid, being the guy with the new invention piano sound that cracked up! (Wasn't nice for the player either.)
I found that lowering the volume would help. But it shouldn't really happen at all. I've not known this behaviour in a soft or hard synth before actually. Surely there is a way for this to be circumvented (if only with limiting - if it's volume related).
Or is there another factor other than volume at play?
It still grows on me every time I use it though. Greetz,
Luke
sqook wrote:which is with the standalone app.... it would be very nice if the app remembered the last patch settings and restored them on launch, rather than defaulting to the Grand C2 chamber patch.
this can be done: go to Files->Preferences and check "Automatically reload parameters on startup"
Ah, cool... stupid me! Thanks.
(Sqook,
I'm about to get off-topic here. I'm posting a related thread. Sorry not to know that we already had the ability to automatically load existing settings.)
Don't know if it's on the list and whats been done. but here goes:
1. TUN file import
While its great that there are 'some' microtunings available, it would open new doors if the scala TUN format could be used, as there is a good library available and seems to be the standard now for VST's implementing microtonal scales.
EDIT..never mind...looks like this is implemented..good job! looks like I have to RTFM :-)
2. FXP preset name shown on the standalone.
Once I import an FXP, sometimes I do not not remember what is imported ( OK..getting old now) -) It would also be great to have a 'comment' section to add performance notes that are saved with the FXP.
Thats all for now..just got it yesterday..so still exploring it.
Tim
A dream request: A way for PianoTeq to automatically match the harmonic profile of a recorded piano note. In other words, one would play a wave file of a single note, and PianoTeq would create the same sound, with the same harmonic profile and volume and envelope. The user would then move to the next note, and then all of the rest, and PianoTeq would again analyze and create matching notes. The user would then save the new preset.
Would require that the user had samples for all of the notes, or played each note live into a mic, unless there was a way for the program to interpolate notes if the user supplied surrounding notes. Velocity response would be a problem: the user might have to provide a low velocity strike and a high velocity strike so PianoTeq could create the correct continuous shifts in harmonic content .
Could we get this next week?
A dream request: A way for PianoTeq to automatically match the harmonic profile of a recorded piano note.
I guess this is what they basically do to create a new preset. But I figure that the whole process is a bit more complex than one would naively think
A dream request: A way for PianoTeq to automatically match the harmonic profile of a recorded piano note. In other words, one would play a wave file of a single note, and PianoTeq would create the same sound, with the same harmonic profile and volume and envelope. The user would then move to the next note, and then all of the rest, and PianoTeq would again analyze and create matching notes. The user would then save the new preset.
Would require that the user had samples for all of the notes, or played each note live into a mic, unless there was a way for the program to interpolate notes if the user supplied surrounding notes. Velocity response would be a problem: the user might have to provide a low velocity strike and a high velocity strike so PianoTeq could create the correct continuous shifts in harmonic content .
Could we get this next week?
This sounds like resynthesis which can be accomplished with some of the new additive synths out there ( such as Camel Audio Cameleon..but rather biased there) However, it might be good to be able to analyze a wave file and take it's harmonic content from it.
Tim
There are several resynthesis programs, but don't they usually (always?) take a wave file and then either save code that creates sine waves or save the resynthesized sound to a new audio file? The problem in Pianoteq would be the modeling--how would the resynthesis program know how to break up the original wave file into the various sound sources. Wouldn't it need to distinguish between sources uch as the direct sound vrs the body resonance and the soundboard reflections, etc, so those could still be adjusted by the user? Or would it need to make this distinction?
There are several resynthesis programs, but don't they usually (always?) take a wave file and then either save code that creates sine waves or save the resynthesized sound to a new audio file? The problem in Pianoteq would be the modeling--how would the resynthesis program know how to break up the original wave file into the various sound sources. Wouldn't it need to distinguish between sources uch as the direct sound vrs the body resonance and the soundboard reflections, etc, so those could still be adjusted by the user? Or would it need to make this distinction?
Sorry to go OT here
Resynthesis in additive means it takes a wave file( or bit map image) and analyzes it, and breaks it down into it's partials for amplitude, and harmonics, along with it's noise element. However, it really depends on the analysis engine for accuracy in the resynthesis. Also, while you can map that particular sample, you usually can't map each note, but zones along the keyboard, so it's kinda like sampling. I think that Physical Modling is different as you have models of each element. However, I think it would be great to see a flow diagram on the inner workings of PianoTeq so we can see the breakdown.
Tim
Having used the model for a few months now I find Pianoteq to be by far the most playable piano software, much closer to a musical instrument than all the sampled pianos on the market.
The potential is clearly there, however, when I listen to recordings I have made using Pianoteq, I am not convinced by the sound. When it really does sound like a recorded grand piano then the Modartt guys will have found the Holy Grail.
I read somewhere here that the pianoteq team understandably decided to limit the complexity of the software so that it ran comfortably on the majority of consumer pcs.
I would love to hear the results of a much larger Pianoteq model.
My wish is simply for an authentic and truly convincing piano sound with a beautiful tone that will really cut it in recordings.
What do you find lacking in the recordings you create? (Are you saying that it sounds fine as you play, but not when you play back mp3's or midi files?)
Hi Jake,
No, I'm aware of it all the time. It's just that when I'm playing I find the sound acceptable enough, any lack of realism is compensated by Pianoteq's responsiveness: No sampled library comes close, with those you find you are just playing a bunch of unrelated samples - it is very hard to get any music out.
I feel that Pianoteq is actually a musical instrument, it is possible to express yourself with it - the future for sure.
However, where professional sampled piano libraries fair better is in the performance of a single note, but obviously that's not a lot of use. Clearly that single note sounds exactly like a recorded piano, because it is.
When I record work with Pianoteq (and I have tried many different settings and added convolution reverbs and valve eqs) I just hear Pianoteq, not a recorded piano. It just doesn't have the body, the fullness of tone, the delicate beauty and the raw power of a decent piano. I'm afraid it sounds like a computer model.
Please don't get me wrong, I think what the Modartt guys are doing is fantastic. I have told many colleagues about it, I'm excited by the concept and can't wait to explore future versions.
It just doesn't sound like a recorded piano yet.
Hi Jake,
No, I'm aware of it all the time. It's just that when I'm playing I find the sound acceptable enough, any lack of realism is compensated by Pianoteq's responsiveness: No sampled library comes close, with those you find you are just playing a bunch of unrelated samples - it is very hard to get any music out.
I feel that Pianoteq is actually a musical instrument, it is possible to express yourself with it - the future for sure.
However, where professional sampled piano libraries fair better is in the performance of a single note, but obviously that's not a lot of use. Clearly that single note sounds exactly like a recorded piano, because it is.
When I record work with Pianoteq (and I have tried many different settings and added convolution reverbs and valve eqs) I just hear Pianoteq, not a recorded piano. It just doesn't have the body, the fullness of tone, the delicate beauty and the raw power of a decent piano. I'm afraid it sounds like a computer model.
Please don't get me wrong, I think what the Modartt guys are doing is fantastic. I have told many colleagues about it, I'm excited by the concept and can't wait to explore future versions.
It just doesn't sound like a recorded piano yet.
I noticed that same people are much more sensitive to the sound tone naturality than others people. For someones Pianoteq sounds excelent in harmonis and tone, while for others the tone still let something to desire. I believe it's about individual aspects, like auditive system or brain processing of sound.
I speculate that Moddart have technology to create a more accurate sound, but that would require more computer power. Like CGI characters that need more details in the basic pattern extructure to a get a very convincing result.
Would be interestin analize the sound wave of some notes of Pianoteq with notes from sample pianos. Maybe the graphic of Pianoteq soundwave have few less details and variation than a sampled piano note tone.
But I'm confidente Pianoteq it's the future. It just need some time to get richer tones and became the ultimate digital piano.
I've analyzed several wave files and recorded some PianoTeq notes to wave files to compare the results. What I found was that the wave files from all of the sources varied widely, and that the PianoTeq files did not have qualities that were peculiar to PianoTeq.
All I can say for certain is that the major differences in the various wave files lay in:
1. The number of what I'll call "near frequencies" for each note. In other words, some wave files of individual notes tended to include more frequencies that were neither the fundamental nor the partials, but were instead frequencies just above and below both the fundamental and the partials. (So an A file at 440, for example, would include the frequency at 440, of course, but would also include, at fairly loud levels, freqs of 438 and 443 or so. The lower partials would also have these near frequencies. I've sometimes thought that these frequencies are those of the slightly detuned unison strings. However, they may not be--some analysis programs (such as GoldWave) show a slope of frequencies that peak at the fundamental & at the partials, instead of the distinct lines for frequencies. They may instead occur because a piano string "emits" a broader spectrum of frequencies than an abstract Fourier formulation accounts for. PianoTeq includes this broad range of frequencies instead of the distinct near frequencies, and so do many sample libraries. I was surprised, actually, that PianoTeq didn't have more of them, even when unisons are detuned. But many sample libraries also lack these. (My ZR76, with the Perfect Piano samples, for example, has few of these distinct near frequencies, but has an obviously different timbre from PianoTeq.) Regardless, I did find that the few notes that had these near freqs (instead of just a wide band of freqs near the fundamental and the other partials) sounded full and rounded--a few samples from a Yamaha P-200, for example, had them, along with the wide band of near frequencies. But I don't think I miss them in PianoTeq---each note sounds good to me. Sometimes I think that it's possible that when chords are played, their absence is more noticeable--their combined effect is missing? Particularly in the octave above the middle C octave? At other times, PianoTeq is so convincing that the addition of other frequencies would be bad. On the other hand, what I'm seeing may be more the way different analysis programs display the analysis: some may just take the loudest near frequencies and display them as separate bands. Or those that display a wide band of frequencies near each fundamental and partial may be "imagining" the freqs between--really only a few freqs are there, but the display shows a slope or a colored area instead of distinct bands. (I'll ask about this difference in displays in a separate topic, come to think about it.)
2. Some wave files of notes at the same velocity have more "warbling" frequencies than others: by these, I mean the transient sounds, occuring more at high velocities but also at low velocities, and changing pitch over the first few milleseconds. They create a wiggly up and down line on the analysis programs. (When listened to in isolation, frequency by frequency instead of as a group of transients, they warble.) Pianoteq has these and seems to increase them, as it should, as higher velocities are reached.
3. The initial frequency of the fundamental is slightly sharp in many sample libraries and in Pianoteq. A few libraries, for reasons I don't understand, don't seem to have as pronounced a raised frequency at the start. Possibly they were assigned midi velocities that were higher than their actual strike velocities.
4. The amplitude of some partials in some wave files varies slightly, dipping to below audible level and then rising back up so they can be heard, in the first 2 seconds or so. In other sample libraries, the amplitude of the partials only declines. I've seen one theory that explains this phenomenon as the sound of the notes bouncing off the interior of the cabinet and coming back to the mic. (I don't know my source for this. Sorry.) Other people argue that the fading in and out of partials is instead the "natural " evolution of a piano note. I don't see a lot of this variation in PianoTeq, but I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
5. The frequencies of some lower partials in some samples varies slightly in the first few seconds after the note has stabilized--after the attack portion, in other words. Not enough for my ear to register a change in pitch, but the freq does seem to shift. I couldn't tell any change in the "quality" of the note. Most samples, and SampleTeq, do not share this change in pitch.
These are obviously rough observations that come more from loading up some files at night and briefly comparing them than from a systematic study. I'd be interested, however, in learning if other people come up with similar findings using whatever piano samples they have. The thing that interests me most is the number of near frequencies, although I'm not entirely sure that they would make a good contribution.
-
marklimbic wrote:
It's just that when I'm playing I find the sound acceptable enough, any lack of realism is compensated by Pianoteq's responsiveness: No sampled library comes close....
When I record work with Pianoteq (and I have tried many different settings and added convolution reverbs and valve eqs) I just hear Pianoteq, not a recorded piano. It just doesn't have the body, the fullness of tone, the delicate beauty and the raw power of a decent piano. I'm afraid it sounds like a computer model.
I have just been looking at Chladni plate pictures of an acoustic guitar top, and if a piano's soundboard is of comparable complexity, I would guess it would need a dedicated CPU all to itself to model accurately.
So perhaps Mark's comment is about today's typical computing power, rather than about the underlying mathematical model. So, the following enhancement request, naturally follows:
*** A non-real time option to render the piano sound, using the full capabilities of the mathematical model. ***
How long would I be prepared to wait? Personally speaking, now that Windows can stay up for longer than a few hours - all night, I don't mind. (I have a big cooler on my CPU - it's the "professional" version ). It would get me out of bed quicker.
How long would other people be prepared to wait for a non-real time rendering?
Thanks Jake, that makes very interesting reading.
As I understand it, the hammer hitting a string causes the string to bend and stretch, thus creating slightly different frequencies which even out after the first few seconds. I don't know, however, whether this effect is overly important or not within the creation of an instrument's tone.
At the end of the day, every single piano sounds completely different and we all have our own individual preferences with regard to tone, timbre and character.
But a real piano sounds like a real piano and it is that absolute authenticity that I need.
I think hyper.real's suggestion of an offline render mode is fantastic.
I don't care how long it takes the computer to think about it if I end up with a release quality, authentic, beautiful piano recording.
Just a cosmetic suggestion
a darker tone of wood for the front GUI, or user selectable woods.
For myself, I like a darker shade. The current color is pastel like, which is OK, but it would be nice to see different shades. Something a bit darker.
Tim
Pianoteq has very good support for temperaments on its own, and I'm grateful for that. But Logic has absolutely superb support for temperaments and, unfortunately, Pianoteq doesn't respond to Logic's temperament messages (unless I'm missing something). It would be both convenient and powerful if it did.
what messages is Logic using?
If you look on http://www.midi.org/about-midi/specshome.shtml
you'll see that in the past few years, the MIDI Manufacturer's Association
have issued a few specs for MIDI tuning messages,
so ideally Pianoteq should support these...
Unfortunately, the Logic manual is silent on how the messages are sent except to say "Logic includes a real time tuning system, for use with the included software
instruments" which would suggest something proprietary. I'd be astonished, though, if the Logic team would deny this information to a legitimate developer who wanted to use it.
As far as I know, Logic is using real-time midi tuning messages. We will implement that in pianoteq (that is on our todo list)
Thanks. I think, next to my real piano, that Pianoteq is the best purchase I've made in the past five years. In part it's just a fine product but it's also because of your tremendous devotion and excellent listening and response. Again, thanks.
Several people have posted wanting the list of user-created fxp's on a dropdown list. It would also be good to have the current fxp's name displayed when it's in use. Now, the program displays the original preset with the # sign to indicate that it has been edited, but there is no way see what fxp is in effect. A separate box to the right of the preset name might list the fxp name.
Displaying the fxp name would be a big help in many circumstances: when we're editing an FXP over several days, and may forget, unless we see the name constantly displayed in front of us, whether we're working on the Baldwin 4 or the New Baldwin 4 with reverb, etc. It would also be valuable when we encounter what seems to be a problem--an fxp that sounded fine yesterday, for example, may seem off today. Having the name of the fxp displayed would let us make sure that it is indeed the same fxp. More generally, if we're creating many, many fxp's, it would just really help to have the name displayed so we can better distinguish between them.
I second that 'display current fxp' request!
As far as I know, Logic is using real-time midi tuning messages. We will implement that in pianoteq (that is on our todo list)
That would be good!
To see what Logic is sending,
one can use a MIDI analyser like the free "MIDI-OX" program,
that will show if it is send SysEx Real Time extensions etc
I have a simple request: it would be nice to be able to set the pitch bend range to 12 semitones at least. I play pianeq on a continuum so I can play arbitrary intervals. The continuum tunes individual notes with pitch bend, but unfortunately the minimum pitchbend range it uses is 12 steps, so I have to set pianoteq to a quarter tone scale to get it to line up right... which requires bigger hands than mine.
I know it's sort of an edge case, but you guys seem to be interested in alternate tunings (thanks for the scala support, btw), and it's probably easy to add. Yeah, I know I could probably insert something in the midi stream to multiply pitchbends by 2, but that adds complexity and latency.
Best of course would be the ability to just type in the pitch bend range, because bending a note over an extreme range can make interesting sounds, in addition to playing a piano like a theremin. And while I'm in wish mode, alternate impulses for string scraping sounds and whatnot would be lots of fun. Taking a live audio stream as the impulse would allow much more flexibility and electric/accousting hybrid instruments, but it would have to be routed to all sounding notes or something. Provided pianoteq has a impulse + resonator model, which is not necessarily the case. But probably most of your customers are interested in realistic standard pianos and not scraped theremin-pianos.
Thanks!
Audio input.
So we could use all the strings as reverb on other instruments.
Like an enormous spring reverb!
This i really would like to hear !!
If this is at all possible it could be a selling point alone for Pianoteq i'm shure.
Edit:
And the possibility to use the keyboard to release the strings we would like to activate as reverb so in that way make reverb alike chords.