Some "heretic" Questions (Page 1 of 2)

So many knobs and sliders to modify any aspect of the virtual piano, but when you start (example!) with the C3 as origin, the sound of the K1 is not reachable by only modifying the parameters.

It may be possible to start with C3 and get close to K1 in the pro version, where the parameters are adjustable per key, and perhaps more importantly, you can adjust every partial of every note. But that's a lot of parameters, so many in fact, that I think it would only be possible with some software tools that can analyze real sounds and extract the parameters automatically. I guess that's pretty much what Modartt do!

However, I am curious if it would be easy to add the ability to morph between any of the pianos, eg 20% of K1 + 50% of C3 + 30% of M3.

I think there are clues in another thread topic:

Refer to the quotes on my post on the topic:  Future for Pianoteq - less "simplification" (post 19).

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?id=1394

If it is true that real time modelling of everything that affects the sound is beyond the capability of present day computers, then it would seem that a number of complex computations must be "preset" or "pre-done".

In other words, some equations/algorithms must be simplified for a particular piano sound, and if these were made completely adjustable there would be too many computations and/or variables to compute in real time for every possible configuration of piano.

Also consider this - - it has been said on this forum that the vibraphone emulation is excellent.  Could it be concluded that the emulation is much simpler than that for a piano?  And that the proof is in the superb sound quality?

The vibraphone should be a much simpler instrument to emulate because it has no soundboard which eliminates sympathetic resonance in the calculations, there are no pedals which introduce more sound variations, and there is virtually no action noise.

All of these (particularly sympathetic resonance) require more complex calculations which are not required for a vibraphone - which seems to imply that more computational effort can be applied to the sound of vibes - and tends to imply that our computers can't yet perfectly emulate a piano.  I don't think this is debatable - for all the excellence in Pianoteq, particularly in playability, many still prefer the sound of samples.  While sample users may not generally be pianists (my suspicion because they often miss the incongruities of sample music), they are not stupid, and they are not tone deaf.

Glenn

There are too many parameters for being able to provide a reasonably friendly interface for managing them. We did not want to have Pianoteq look like an industry computation software that requires a manual with thousands of pages and several months of learning. Pianoteq is aimed to musicians, not to industry engineers.

For each piano we build a new model. An example is the soundboard: there are more parameters than those available through the interface. For those who are familiar with scientific computation, think how much data is used for describing the finite element model of a given piano soundboard.

Alain, the models inside Pianoteq are physical models, because they are  governed by the equations of physics (mechanics).

The models which they are derived from, OK. But, as you explained in your example, the models inside Pianoteq no longer represent the behaviour of each element of the soundboard. Let's say that they are still physical models, but simplified, as are most physical laws we have been taught at school  (if only because linearity does not exist in nature).

My guess would have been that there are variables not suited to being "set free" for users to change.
I have very little idea what they actually are, but there are probably several that would lead to instruments nothing like pianos if not kept under some sort of "factory control".
The interactions between some of them probably need to be properly managed in order to stay with "piano like" sounds.

Pianoteq is not a general synth, though it is not hard to imagine that the underlying models and math could be adapted to become a platform for synth development.

I suspect that Philippe wants Pianoteq (NOTE that name) to remain a very good piano emulator, not something that can be stretched in every conceivable dimension to emulate anything/everything.
.

You may shorten my pseudo to iaorana, Glenn, or even iaora (it means "hello!", while maeva means "welcome!")

Sure! 35 years ago, I spent sleepless nights trying to extract pitch and envelopes from guitar strings while developing the first guitar synth
ever marketed (Digitone ORS GM-201) - yes, before Roland...

A harp also it's very simpler than a piano, as have no soundboard.  I supose a modelled harp would be a perfect instrument for pianoteq.

By the way, I want to rise this question:

What other instrument would you like to have on pianoteq  ?

Please opine.

Upright bass.  With MIDI control for glissando, vibrato and pluck it could be an awesome duo with Pianoteq -just add brushes for the combo...

Ever since hearing Monsoon's "Ever So Lonely" I've been quite partial (if not overtoned!) to the Sitar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW_alnUe6TQ

Greg.

I vigorously agree!

Well although a harp is plucked with the fingers a la guitar, there are no frets like a guitar for the other hand (both hands pluck the strings).

Thus there can be no pitch bends, and no slide noises which can be a large part of a guitar sound.

Guitarists can "nuance" the strings with both hands which affords enormous control of the sound.

I'll have to ask my niece how much tonal control a harpist has - she's an excellent harpist (classical concert type).

Glenn

The ship has sailed.  We've left the harbor.  We don't have to be limited by traditional paragons.  It's like the health care plan -no one is being forced to buy anything...  but if an upright bass was available, it would be very useful.  Pianoteq is a perfect engine for developing a virtual version.  The nuances are nowhere as extreme as for guitar, and nothing at all like wind instruments.  Sure, there are acoustic plucking techniques that won't be available (& I'm not talking electric bass here with slaps, etc.) but there are acoustic piano techniques that are not available with Pianoteq - I can't reach in and fondle the strings for extraneous sounds, for example.  If there is one additional instrument that stands out as an accompaniment for acoustic piano (besides the human voice), it's got to be the upright.

I'm wondering whether Upright Bass is really that easy to model. You really need to hear the wood and the resonance of the chamber, it's a very dominant part of the sound of the instrument.

Sampling an acoustic bass, I believe, is much easier, but responsiveness and realtime control would suffer. My opinion FWIW.

Well, I think they are not, but a completely diifferent approach would be needed. Blown instruments need continuous control by breath controllers or mod wheels or foot controllers. "sample modeling" built some nice and realistically playable instruments (I use Mr. Sax T). They are sample based, but the way how the samples are used lets me believe this would be possible in a completely synthetic way, and they can be played in a way so others think you play the real instrument.
But again, this would hardly fit into what pianoteq is.

Like myself I like to play (double-)basslines along with the piano play (in split-keyboard-mode)...but it is only meant to support the pianoplay not to act as a solo-instrument. In this case a good sample is more than appropriate. I'm using for example Trilogy from Spectratronics which is by the way (more than) very suitable for playing solo-lines either. Looking at the pictures in the gallery on Spectrasonics website it looks like Tarenskeens brother Bart created a set of the samples for this product
So Yes, let Pianoteq stick to their pianoinstruments and make those better and better (e.g. more powerfull, woody baselines). An upright would be wonderfull indeed although tweaking the Y5 - detuned gets close.

Virtually, may be , but practically, they are - I mean there is no physical reason they could not be modelled!

Regarding the couple player-instrument, it's another story: how could a keyboard act like a guitar "user interface" ?

Believe me - when you have this mouthpiece in your mouth, you automatically do the right action while playing the keyboard. I don't play real wind instruments, but with abovementioned "Mr. Sax T" it worked perfectly.
Having said that, I still think Pianoteq's nature is to emulate percussive instruments where some string or plate or bell or whatever is being excited by stroke or pluck and then left alone vibrating until it is damped.

Of course there are limits. It hardly can replace the real instrument in all aspects. But it has good pitch bend behaviour, good glides which are velocity dependent in speed, extra control inputs for growl, tongue flutter and subharmonics and a very good breath controller response not only in dynamics but also in sound. I never thought this would be possible with a saxophone, but it is a good emulation.

How many feet do you own?

Ah, the agony of defeet...

AGO players seem to have 25, home organists 13.

Is 8 fingers and 2 thumbs for 88 keys now suddenly a PROBLEM ?
(-:

I had a Hammond that had 12 bass pedals, REALLY dumb idea.