You are not logged in. Please login or register.

RSS


(Page 1 of 2)

Pages 1 2 Next

You must login or register to post a reply

1

Topic: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

i have tried all the demos of the various pianoteq evolutions and its variants. it always gets better........ but....... it still never sound right...... still somewhat synthetic...... however, the 4.5 update really does sound like metal strings and hammers vibrating and dancing around in a wooden cabinet. it sounds like a real piano. some of the model d and upright presets are really excellent, and a great point for further modification.  this is a landmark moment, and to think it can only get better ! a great product. on another note ( no pun intended ) i have not noticed any extra cpu cycles for the upright model. i can run 4.5 on a duel core cpu @ 1.73 ghz at 6.5ms latency with no audio glitches at all. admittedly i have shut down all the background operations in windows. this product will eventually kill off piano sample libraries forever. congratulations to the team and its assured future growth and success.

2

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Yes, it's a matter of time only to modelled became nearly perfect.

They are getting closer and closer by each new update...

3

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

The perfect piano will be when you start to play and not think about whether its software and not the real thing.

4

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Red, agree. For me the 4.5 release is the real break-through release. I was not really warming to 4.0. Hopefully the rest (Pleyel, and all the great fortepianos) will follow.

Paul

5

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

4.5 is indeed a huge improvement.  The only severe problem I can see appears to have to do with the resolution of the simulation.  Pianoteq sounds...granular.  It has since it first came out.  It sounds like the texture of a garage floor or a blackboard, but audibly.  It still had this problem even back when I first bought V2.0.  I find it so annoying that I haven't upgraded yet.

I will the moment they fix it.

6

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

PelPix wrote:

4.5 is indeed a huge improvement.  The only severe problem I can see appears to have to do with the resolution of the simulation.  Pianoteq sounds...granular.  It has since it first came out.  It sounds like the texture of a garage floor or a blackboard, but audibly.  It still had this problem even back when I first bought V2.0.  I find it so annoying that I haven't upgraded yet.

I will the moment they fix it.

Strange. I hear no such granularity in Pianoteq, but what you say suggests something I heard in a 48kHz recording badly downsampled to 44.1 (a recording of a choir I sing in, so I know the details) The sound was indeed very granular and grating when listening through headphones. Going 48 -> 44.1 needs appropriate mathematical treatment since the sample rates are not multiples of each other.

If for example you set pianoteq's sample rate to 48 or its multiples (96, 192) and your soundcard only outputs 44.1 (without proper treatment) and fakes the higher sample rate, that might explain the granularity.

Just a thought, I'm not a sound recording expert and I don't know what equipment you use...

7

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

The Pianoteq sound "granular"?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

8

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Pianophile wrote:

The Pianoteq sound "granular"?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Same.

Hard work and guts!

9

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

EvilDragon wrote:
Pianophile wrote:

The Pianoteq sound "granular"?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Same.

same....

10

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Gilles wrote:
PelPix wrote:

4.5 is indeed a huge improvement.  The only severe problem I can see appears to have to do with the resolution of the simulation.  Pianoteq sounds...granular.  It has since it first came out.  It sounds like the texture of a garage floor or a blackboard, but audibly.  It still had this problem even back when I first bought V2.0.  I find it so annoying that I haven't upgraded yet.

I will the moment they fix it.

Strange. I hear no such granularity in Pianoteq, but what you say suggests something I heard in a 48kHz recording badly downsampled to 44.1 (a recording of a choir I sing in, so I know the details) The sound was indeed very granular and grating when listening through headphones. Going 48 -> 44.1 needs appropriate mathematical treatment since the sample rates are not multiples of each other.

If for example you set pianoteq's sample rate to 48 or its multiples (96, 192) and your soundcard only outputs 44.1 (without proper treatment) and fakes the higher sample rate, that might explain the granularity.

Just a thought, I'm not a sound recording expert and I don't know what equipment you use...


No resampling happens anywhere in my rig.  Also, I even hear it in the demos on the main site, so it's not just something I'm doing.  Sennheiser HD800 if you're wondering.  I also hear it on my HD650, my K702, my monitors, and my earbuds, out of every source I've ever used.

I hear it in the v-piano and the physis too.  It's like some sort of problem with the combination of types of synthesis they use to make it fast enough to run in real-time.

Last edited by PelPix (08-06-2013 05:32)

11

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Perhaps try a different attribute to describe what you're hearing, because "granular" isn't it. If anything is granular, it's velocity response of sampled pianos... big_smile

Last edited by EvilDragon (08-06-2013 12:02)
Hard work and guts!

12

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

EvilDragon wrote:

Perhaps try a different attribute to describe what you're hearing, because "granular" isn't it. If anything is granular, it's velocity response of sampled pianos... big_smile

It's not granular in any sense like that.  The basic sound itself is granular.  It's like the signal is being convolved by a recording of the output of a turntable needle going over a satin surface.  It's extremely subtle, but it's annoying.

Last edited by PelPix (08-06-2013 13:19)

13

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

PelPix wrote:

It's not granular in any sense like that.  The basic sound itself is granular.  It's like the signal is being convolved by a recording of the output of a turntable needle going over a satin surface.  It's extremely subtle, but it's annoying.

Your description of Pianoteq's supposed granularity is also very subtle...but I really like it. I don't understand it but I like it!

14

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

PelPix wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:

Perhaps try a different attribute to describe what you're hearing, because "granular" isn't it. If anything is granular, it's velocity response of sampled pianos... big_smile

It's not granular in any sense like that.  The basic sound itself is granular.  It's like the signal is being convolved by a recording of the output of a turntable needle going over a satin surface.  It's extremely subtle, but it's annoying.

A subtle description, but I'm not sure I know what it is describing.

1. Do you hear this with the reverb turned off?
2. Do you hear it if the reverb is turned off and if there is only one mic active on the mics page?

15

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

PelPix wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:

Perhaps try a different attribute to describe what you're hearing, because "granular" isn't it. If anything is granular, it's velocity response of sampled pianos... big_smile

It's not granular in any sense like that.  The basic sound itself is granular.  It's like the signal is being convolved by a recording of the output of a turntable needle going over a satin surface.  It's extremely subtle, but it's annoying.

I think you're way off, but alright. big_smile

Hard work and guts!

16

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Jake Johnson wrote:
PelPix wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:

Perhaps try a different attribute to describe what you're hearing, because "granular" isn't it. If anything is granular, it's velocity response of sampled pianos... big_smile

It's not granular in any sense like that.  The basic sound itself is granular.  It's like the signal is being convolved by a recording of the output of a turntable needle going over a satin surface.  It's extremely subtle, but it's annoying.

A subtle description, but I'm not sure I know what it is describing.

1. Do you hear this with the reverb turned off?
2. Do you hear it if the reverb is turned off and if there is only one mic active on the mics page?

I hear it no matter what, and I hear it in every commercially available physical modeling solution.  I hear it in pianoteq, physis, on the V-Piano, and even all of Applied Acoustics' products.  I don't hear it on any other kind of recording.

I don't understand how you all don't hear it.  It's pretty glaring.

17

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

It's not always easy to describe sounds in words.

What exactly do you mean by "granularity" in a sound ?

Do you have a example, a exagerated example, of any "granular" sound, to give us a good idea ?

Is it presente in the entire range (bass to trebble) or not?

Last edited by Beto-Music (08-06-2013 23:59)

18

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Beto-Music wrote:

It's not always easy to describe sounds in words.

What exactly do you mean by "granularity" in a sound ?

Do you have a example, a exagerated example, of any "granular" sound, to give us a good idea ?

Is it presente in the entire range (bass to trebble) or not?

I figured out the source.  The algorithm that simulates the resonance inside the piano body (different from the reverb) is not fully evaluated to a time step equivalent to the sample rate; it's definitely lower.  I'm sure this is because the real model is too slow to run in real-time.

The sound reflections are not fully solved to the timescale, so they arrive in little packets that are further apart than they should be, and this makes the sound grainy.

If I'm right, Modartt needs to lower the time step on this sim.  I don't mind if it isn't real-time.  It should be made an offline toggle or something.

It also sounds like the areas of the piano case that should be curved are partially faceted instead, perhaps to further decrease processing time?

Last edited by PelPix (09-06-2013 00:10)

19

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

I'm curious if Philippe is going to chime in and comment on these assumptions.

Hard work and guts!

20

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

EvilDragon wrote:

I'm curious if Philippe is going to chime in and comment on these assumptions.

Same here!

21

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

PelPix wrote:
Beto-Music wrote:

It's not always easy to describe sounds in words.

What exactly do you mean by "granularity" in a sound ?

Do you have a example, a exagerated example, of any "granular" sound, to give us a good idea ?

Is it presente in the entire range (bass to trebble) or not?

I figured out the source.  The algorithm that simulates the resonance inside the piano body (different from the reverb) is not fully evaluated to a time step equivalent to the sample rate; it's definitely lower.  I'm sure this is because the real model is too slow to run in real-time.

The sound reflections are not fully solved to the timescale, so they arrive in little packets that are further apart than they should be, and this makes the sound grainy.

If I'm right, Modartt needs to lower the time step on this sim.  I don't mind if it isn't real-time.  It should be made an offline toggle or something.

It also sounds like the areas of the piano case that should be curved are partially faceted instead, perhaps to further decrease processing time?



1+ for hearing from Philippe. In the meantime, I'm trying to understand exactly what was said:


Pelpix, can you explain your critique in a little more detail?

1. I of course understand what you mean by the body resonance. I'm not sure I understand what is meant by " not fully evaluated to a time step equivalent to the sample rate; it's definitely lower)" and "so they arrive in little packets that are further apart than they should be."

(Are you saying that there is jitter? I'm reading this source now to try to better understand the problem: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/ … Jitter.htm . But I do not know that I hear it in PT.)

2. You later say "It also sounds like the areas of the piano case that should be curved are partially faceted instead, perhaps to further decrease processing time?"

What in the sound makes you hear this? It seems possible, but I do not know how one could distinguish the multiple planes of reflection from a curved plane. Perhaps understanding your means of examining the sound and your setup would help me to understand. Are you using audio-testing software?

One thing I don't understand is how you could isolate the sound of these reflections. By turning off the reverb and using one mic? My impression,which I may soon learn is incorrect, is that the floor and ceiling resonances are present even when the reverb is turned off. But even if one can isolate the body resonance, I'm left not understanding how one could determine if multiple planes are being referenced instead of curved surfaces.

Last edited by Jake Johnson (09-06-2013 17:13)

22

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

I'm still not 100% sure what the cause is.  Still investigating.  It may be something in the hammer model.  I'm not sure.

Last edited by PelPix (09-06-2013 17:29)

23

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

So now you're just shooting in the dark. Good to know. big_smile

Hard work and guts!

24

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

This is fascinating. It's like PelPix has super-hearing or audio brain circuitry and is sensitive to a common artifact of digital audio processing that most people aren't. My guess is FFT artifacts, not that I know much about them.

25

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

PelPix,

Can you isolate a particular time in the duration of the note when you hear this? Does it become more prominent at a certain stage?

Last edited by Jake Johnson (12-06-2013 14:10)

26

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

mooks wrote:

This is fascinating. It's like PelPix has super-hearing or audio brain circuitry and is sensitive to a common artifact of digital audio processing that most people aren't. My guess is FFT artifacts, not that I know much about them.

This doesn't sound like FFT artifacts at all.  Those sound less like grain and more like water.  This almost sounds like raycasting is being used and there are too few rays, but I doubt that's the case as raycasting is way too slow to be used in a VST.

Jake Johnson wrote:

PelPix,

Can you isolate a particular time in the duration of the note when you hear this? Does it become more prominent at certain stage?

It's definitely more prominent at the hammer hit, but it's omnipresent.  It got a lot better in 4.5, but it's still there.  1 and 2 had it big-time.  3 was slightly better, 4 was slightly better, and 4.5 is almost all the way better.  It's a big jump, and I suspect I will be happy with pianoteq 5.

Last edited by PelPix (11-06-2013 22:11)

27

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Raycasting IS being used in QuikQuak RaySpace. big_smile

Hard work and guts!

28

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

EvilDragon wrote:

Raycasting IS being used in QuikQuak RaySpace. big_smile

ED,

Has anyone created "room" shaped like a piano with Rayspace?

29

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Not to my knowledge. big_smile

Hard work and guts!

30

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

EvilDragon wrote:

So now you're just shooting in the dark. Good to know. big_smile

Something in all this reminds me of Joan of Arc.  big_smile

G

__________________________
Procrastination Week has been postponed.  Again.

31

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

EvilDragon wrote:

Raycasting IS being used in QuikQuak RaySpace. big_smile

Yes and no.  RaySpace does not do the ray-tracing in real-time.  It ray-traces and then saves an IR to RAM and convolves.  That's why it takes a few moments after you change the room for it to update and you can watch the rays accumulate.

32

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

EvilDragon wrote:

Raycasting IS being used in QuikQuak RaySpace. big_smile

So, when I saw the words "QuikQuak RaySpace" here I thought that at least TWO people in this thread had gone off the deep end but a quick Google search set me straight. I still don't know what the heck you guys are talking about but I hope whatever it is gets fixed real soon.

33

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

PelPix wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:

Raycasting IS being used in QuikQuak RaySpace. big_smile

Yes and no.  RaySpace does not do the ray-tracing in real-time.  It ray-traces and then saves an IR to RAM and convolves.  That's why it takes a few moments after you change the room for it to update and you can watch the rays accumulate.

Nope, it doesn't convolve at all. Inform yourself before spouting misinformation about a product. Yes, you CAN export a room to an IR. But that's not what it's doing in realtime.

"RaySpace does NOT use convolution algorithms, it's a completely original design. And unlike convolution, long reverb times use the same CPU as short ones, allowing you to make huge spaces!"

http://www.quikquak.com/Prod_RaySpace.html

So are you saying that you're smarter than David Hoskins, the guy who programmed the plugin?

Last edited by EvilDragon (13-06-2013 08:32)
Hard work and guts!

34

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

EvilDragon wrote:
PelPix wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:

Raycasting IS being used in QuikQuak RaySpace. big_smile

Yes and no.  RaySpace does not do the ray-tracing in real-time.  It ray-traces and then saves an IR to RAM and convolves.  That's why it takes a few moments after you change the room for it to update and you can watch the rays accumulate.

Nope, it doesn't convolve at all. Inform yourself before spouting misinformation about a product. Yes, you CAN export a room to an IR. But that's not what it's doing in realtime.

"RaySpace does NOT use convolution algorithms, it's a completely original design. And unlike convolution, long reverb times use the same CPU as short ones, allowing you to make huge spaces!"

http://www.quikquak.com/Prod_RaySpace.html

So are you saying that you're smarter than David Hoskins, the guy who programmed the plugin?

You're right!  I forgot.  It uses something else to store and compress the the room acoustics after it's done tracing instead of an impulse response.  I was thinking of Voxengo Impulse Modeler.  My mistake.

The point I was making still stands, though (What I said about rayspace convolving was a nit, not part of my actual statement): the tracing is not done in real-time, so I doubt pianoteq is using it, as a piano model is changed (And therefore needs to be re-evaluated) more often than a room.  This puts me back to square one, because it really sounds like a ray casting artifact, but it can't be one.

Last edited by PelPix (15-06-2013 21:21)

35

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

There's no raycasting in Pianoteq, that's correct.

Hard work and guts!

36

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

PelPix, I confirm there is no raycasting in Pianoteq: the acoustic radiation field is computed via a structural analysis model coupled to integral equations. I suggest you try to isolate a very short example (either extracted from our demos, either obtained via Pianoteq) and send it to our support http://www.pianoteq.com/support_form. In the case you provide an example obtained via Pianoteq, please provide also a midi file and the preset that was used.

37

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

There we go, official confirmation. smile

Philippe - anything to counter the argument about PelPix's comment in post #18?

Hard work and guts!

38

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

EvilDragon wrote:

There we go, official confirmation. smile
Philippe - anything to counter the argument about PelPix's comment in post #18?

Well, indeed the resonance inside the piano body is not evaluated to a time step lower than the sample rate, but I'm not sure this is of any interest here: before making a diagnosis, the problem needs to be identified, which is the reason why I asked PelPix to contact our support with an example.

39

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Philippe Guillaume wrote:

PelPix, I confirm there is no raycasting in Pianoteq: the acoustic radiation field is computed via a structural analysis model coupled to integral equations. I suggest you try to isolate a very short example (either extracted from our demos, either obtained via Pianoteq) and send it to our support http://www.pianoteq.com/support_form. In the case you provide an example obtained via Pianoteq, please provide also a midi file and the preset that was used.

I wish it was that easy, but the sound is omnipresent in pianoteq.  There is no part of any audio produced by pianoteq that does not have the issue.  I can't cut out a portion because it all does it.  It's immediately noticeable upon booting up pianoteq directly after install and playing the example midi file that's built in.

What I'm attempting to describe is the whole difference in sound between pianoteq and a real piano; it's not a bug, it's just what pianoteq is at this point in time.  Every release improves the model and the problem goes away slightly more.  All my original post meant to say was that the difference wasn't completely gone yet, but that pianoteq 4.5 had closed the gap a bit further, and that it was a great product.

I'm going to try something, one sec.

Last edited by PelPix (17-06-2013 01:34)

40

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

If you keep being the only person in the world to hear that, pianoteq reputation is safe.

41

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

It's interesting that Pelpix was initially so completely sure about what was mathematically wrong with Pianoteq but later had to take it all back.

I tend to agree with him, though, that Pianoteq has yet to take the final small leap towards complete authenticity but then I'm pretty sure the Pianoteq developers agree with this too. Pianoteq is already a technological marvel as it is.

42

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

I have a theory.

He probably have a living bug inside his PC, and the bug loves pianoteq. So everytime he runs pianoteq the bug sings together.




PunBB bbcode test



PunBB bbcode test

43

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Pianophile wrote:

It's interesting that Pelpix was initially so completely sure about what was mathematically wrong with Pianoteq but later had to take it all back.

I tend to agree with him, though, that Pianoteq has yet to take the final small leap towards complete authenticity but then I'm pretty sure the Pianoteq developers agree with this too. Pianoteq is already a technological marvel as it is.

It is really, really hard to pin down.  I hear it most around the hammer hits, but it's everywhere.  I don't quite know wh-

Beto-Music wrote:

I have a theory.

He probably have a living bug inside his PC, and the bug loves pianoteq. So everytime he runs pianoteq the bug sings together.




PunBB bbcode test



PunBB bbcode test


Ladies and gentlemen, this man has figured it out.

Last edited by PelPix (17-06-2013 18:17)

44

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

PelPix

On a more serious note, I'm still curious about what you may be hearing. Could you give us your specs and settings?

1. Audio card model and sampling rate and bit resolution.
2. The sampling rate and number of buffer samples that you set Pianoteq to work with.
3. Audio drivers loaded in your operating system. (Which I've found may be different from what I want--despite my older ASIO card, Windows always loaded its own drivers, and I'll never really know if the sound changed as a result.)
4. Output devices--amps, preamps, headphones, monitors, etc
5. Other software---are you running the standalone version of Pianoteq, or are you listening while in a given DAW? When you listen to the mp3's, what software do you use?

Not trying to put you on the spot, here. But I do wonder particularly about what Gilles was suggesting--a mismatch somewhere, and about whether you would get closer to what you want with a sound card upgrade. (But for all I know, you may already be running 96 kHz\24 bits.)

I'm curious partly because I recently upgraded my sound card to a Zoom box that can handle 96Khz and 24 bits and I'm noticing a substantial difference in the sound--particularly in the sympathetic resonance--much more distinct and subtle at the same time. Hard to describe. I think that what I hear is that I can more clearly distinguish between the sympathetic resonances and the early reflections from the reverb than I could with my older 16 bit card. Maybe my real question here is--Have you tried listening at 24\96 on a 24\96 sound card?

Cheers.

Last edited by Jake Johnson (18-06-2013 02:58)

45

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Jake - wouldn't it be easier for PelPix to simply listen to recordings of real pianos through his current setup, and if they sound normal, then there's no need to go to all that trouble, surely.

Greg.

46

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

skip wrote:

Jake - wouldn't it be easier for PelPix to simply listen to recordings of real pianos through his current setup, and if they sound normal, then there's no need to go to all that trouble, surely.

Greg.


Well, I'm not just looking for a mismatch somewhere. I'm wondering if there are elements that, when combined, create what he hears--a specific sound card, perhaps, that causes a problem with Pianoteq, or settings in Control Panel\Sound that may sound fine with other instruments but conflict with Pianoteq. I do understand what you mean---listening to recordings of real pianos would isolate the one variable, Pianoteq, confirming it as an isolated problem, if there is a problem. But the question would still be--the problem when combined with what other elements? Just wanting to know all of the variables. That way, if some of us have some of the same equipment, such as the same sound card, we might be able to discount that as a problem or suggest settings.

But I must also admit to just being curious about the sound card involved and the drivers, along with what drivers Windows, if he is using Windows, shows in Control Panel\Sound. (I may start a new thread about what differences people hear when using a 24\96 setting.)

47

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Quote: "(I may start a new thread about what differences people hear when using a 24\96 setting.)"
Go for it. Uh, no, sorry, go for 24, forget about 96 :-))) Given my age, I can't hear anything anymore above 15 KHz anyway.
The interesting thing is certainly to compare recordings of the real thing and Pianoteq...
On stage, Pianoteq has no competition IMHO, but on a (high quality) recording to be listened to on a good hifi system?

48

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Beto-Music wrote:

If you keep being the only person in the world to hear that, pianoteq reputation is safe.

Well, all Pelpix is really saying here is that Pianoteq and a real piano sound quite different. That and also that he thinks Pianoteq is a great product. I agree with him on all counts. Of course, 'quite' is a relative term. I love Pianoteq but it is different than my baby grand. Sometimes I like Pianoteq better and sometimes the grand. Pelpix's description of Pianoteq's sound is a bit hard to understand and I think that is in many ways a compliment to Pianoteq. At least he didn't say that Modartt's product sounds like a 15 inch toy piano. That would be a very easy to understand statement!

49

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Trying to find out what PelPix means by granular sound, I used a couple of low notes using a modified U4 preset to bring out as much as possible the raw synthesized sound.

Here is the fxp and test for U4.

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.php?id=1685
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p … und_U4.mp3

This example shows the first 20 seconds or so with a normal U4 Tall preset, sounding quite good to me, letting the last note decay, and then the "raw" preset playing the same notes, and made to decay much longer.

If you listen again to the first portion, you may now notice more of this raw, a bit granular sound far in the background.

Maybe PelPix can say if this is what he means.

Doing the same test with Black Grand samples or my keyboard's sampled piano sound, I don't hear such a texture. It's a bit hard to say in fact because my keyboard is a looped sample and playing the midi file to my GigaStudio Black Grand samples cuts the last note short...but I find a different tail to the sound, smoother and I hear only partials interacting in the decay.

I tried to minimize this partial interaction in the raw preset, using a flat temperament and no unison detuning to bring out the basic waveform.

My hypothesis, since PelPix hears it in all modeled pianos, is that it may be a side effect of producing a waveform with many limited resolution computations (even 64 bit floating point is limited)
Pianoteq's modeling is in final analysis a very, very, very, ... , VERY sophisticated form of additive synthesis where the final waveform is the result of a very high number of calculations.

Maybe this background texture is a result of a lot of very tiny errors accumulating, while a sample or a piano recording is one shot. No comparison also with a real instrument that doesn't go through amplification and produces a 3D soundfield directly by moving air.

By the way, in response to Jake, my soundcard can output 24 or 16 bits samples and I do hear a slight difference, 24 bits samples being slightly smoother by having finer steps. But since we usually output 16/44.1 wav or compressed mp3, this difference is only useful when listening live.

This textured effect has always been there I think, qualified maybe as the "pianoteq sound" by some, but the better the modeling of all the components of an instrument gets, the further this raw sound is pushed in the background, to the point where it doesn't bother me at all.

My hypothesis may be wrong of course, this is just a very limited experiment. But then Pianoteq's goal has always been real-time output and it does fine as such, so approximations are unavoidable in that case.

50

Re: Pianoteq 4.5. the real deal

Gilles wrote:

By the way, in response to Jake, my soundcard can output 24 or 16 bits samples and I do hear a slight difference, 24 bits samples being slightly smoother by having finer steps. But since we usually output 16/44.1 wav or compressed mp3, this difference is only useful when listening live.

My hope is that DVD-Audio will catch on and that prices will fall. (And that iTunes will come to see that there is still an audience for  "hi-fi.") Here in the US, the large consumer store Best Buy sells DVD-A recordings for around $14-$30 US.

I don't know the percentage of current DVD players that support playing only audio files, however. And another problem is with car stereos--I imagine that no one wants to buy what looks like a CD, but will only play at home on something they associate with watching movies. I don't know if a DVD-A player even exists for cars. But let's hope for changes there. Maybe we have to create films as a background for the music?

Last edited by Jake Johnson (19-06-2013 06:36)

Posts [ 1 to 50 of 63 ]

Pages 1 2 Next

You must login or register to post a reply


Forum administered by MODARTT S.A.S.
www.pianoteq.com