What's the status of Pianoteq's next upgrade? (Page 1 of 2)

For who checked out Pianoteq Site News, there are those new videos of Pianoteq, performed by Hugh Sung, and one even compares Pianoteq with a acoustic piano.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr-k0_C_7Y8
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo0O1pC6zDA  (Pianoteq x Acoustic Grand)
 
The reverberation distortion it's the major problem to judge the sound, and also youtube sound quality limitations.

Thank you for your reply, Nicolas.  But while I didn't expect an exact answer, I was hoping there might be an 'approximate' answer.  For example, 'within one year'; or  'at least 4 years more', or, 'any day now'.   To not give any answer is, I think, a little unreasonable.  Can't you at least give an approximation to, say, within 6 months?  I guess I would think if an answer that close is not available, then maybe it may not happen at all? I would assume this is being worked on?  And if that's the case, will it happen within my lifetime?

Nobody is trying to pin anyone down here, just trying to get a very rough approximation.  Is there one available?

Thank you sir, you have answered my question! 

You're right: most people don't know what they're talking about on this subject.  Now in my own defense, I was classically trained for 10 years, and have played professionally and otherwise for the last 50 years or so.  And I've played some wonderful pianos, including Fazolis and Steinways.  And I own a Yamaha C2 grand. 

While I respect everyone's opinion, yours seems a little extreme.  Pianoteq is excellent in many ways, but if you check what  highly-qualified professionals are saying, including Keyboard Magazine, and others.  Ivory is the best out there right now. It is not perfect, but the tone is wonderful.  Pianoteq has the potential to be the best, due to it's wonderful response to a pianists' touch.  But 'potential' here is the operative word.

In all seriousness, and no malice intended, let me ask you a very important question:  Have you had a hearing test recently?

dreamsmith my hearing is better than ever. I own Ivory and it is inferior. It is a collection of disparately recorded piano notes which features hiss, quantisation noise, volume unevenness and (regardless of their 'acoustic faithfulness') sounds which in comparison to the synthesised sound of Pianoteq do not FEEL like a piano when played together. They do not sound as rich and wonderfully organic as Pianoteq does - simply because they do not have any affect on each other whatsoever. If you're demoing individual notes then yes Ivory will sound 'better' (i.e. more acoustically real) in that what you're hearing is an actual piano recorded, but for actual practical playing I would take Pianoteq everytime - it simply sounds 'together' and is actually an instrument instead of a collection of sampled notes. I would suggest your perception of what you're hearing has been tainted through others' opinions; either that or you simply don't understand the point of Pianoteq as a piano emulator, and the nature of synthesis emulation, and you're trying to listen for something that you simply won't find in a virtual instrument as paradigm shifting as Pianoteq.

P.S. I've seen another forum post of yours - if you want to make the bass notes in Pianoteq 'bigger'; as an alternative to EQ try using something like Waves Renaissance Bass as an insert - it can make the bottom end of the instrument absolutely thunderous.

I never even got to read your deleted post, but if it reads like that last one I doubt I've missed anything crucial. My age has nothing to do with this debate, you're the one trying to brag about having years of piano experience in a vain attempt to add credibility to your opinions. You shouldn't be making assumptions about my maturity or my experience. I absolutely DO have the right to challenge you and your opinion, this is a Pianoteq forum and I disagree very strongly with the misinformation you are purporting to be true - especially given you were badgering the developers for an update for their product when I feel the 'flaws' you identify are without merit. Your only defence was to point to your years of experience, 'professional' magazines' opinions, and then accuse me of having poor hearing; and I'm supposed to be the immature one here?!

I agree. Let's be productive about this and hear from Dreamsmith specific examples of where the sound is and isn't good enough in whichever preset(s) he's using. Intelligent critique of the tone with proper comparisons is needed; not wishy washy 'could use a little more timbre, or sound quality' or using other people's words (anyone can do that: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan07/a...oteq.htm).

I also need to add that my giving specific examples of music to prove my point is meaningless.  Why, because people like some on this forum, would not allow their blind prejudices to really listen to what I would post as examples.  They would simply turn off their objectivity, so why should I bother.

I know what is truth for me, and others know what is truth for them, and these truths are NOT the same.

Dreamsmith I'm almost done with this thread. You say: 'Pianoteq needs to improve their product, period.' and then you shout 'NOBODY IS RIGHT OR WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO JUDGING SOMETHING LIKE MUSIC OR ART'! Are you aware how much of a contradiction this is!? Subjectively: if Pianoteq do need to improve their product, I certainly hope they don't do so by listening to your current vague espousings about timbre. What needs to happen here is that you need to improve your attitude and post something worthwhile information wise, or alternatively you need to leave and use Ivory instead. Currently all you've achieved is to fill this thread with misinformation and waffle that says absolutely NOTHING about what is and isn't a good piano product. A pure synthesised emulation of a piano is not going to sound like a recorded acoustic piano, but it will sound like a fantastic piano instrument in its own right - this is the part I think you've failed to understand and why I feel the way you're currently comparing Ivory and Pianoteq is pointless. That to me IS fact; you're comparing apples to oranges! We live in a world where Ivory is always going to sound more like an acoustically recorded real piano...because it is one! I hope you will choose to participate properly in this discussion and discuss with reasoned argument how Pianoteq's makers could improve its sound/tone in a preset for you, instead of making sweeping statements on behalf of all of us, which do nothing but undermine the product's quality! Please either participate properly or not at all. Good day sir.

Does anybody here noticed that the Sebastien Erard have a quite more natural tone, timbre, than the Grand C2 models??

Or am I the only who noticed that???

So do I - as well as the Bechstein model.

Try reducing the piano size, maybe all the way to the far left, and work from there: the unisons, the Direct sound, and the soundboard are all going to help. Remember that too much soundboard impedance tends to thin out the sound.

wow, without doubt, this is a very horrible forum to say anything that suggests "Pianoteq isn't perfect".

Beto-Music: That was exactly what I was trying to say in a different way; thank you!  Makes sense to me.  I for one, will be very glad when this product is equivalent in quality (mainly realistic tone) with the best there is. 

And I don't understand why some people seem to take these things personally, and feel as if Pianoteq is being insulted.  Quite the contrary; many of us just want a really good product to be the best out there!

If you think something is perfect then how can it improve?  And would you recognize it if it did?

          I would suggest that we should not feel Pianoteq is perfect, and continue to encourage Philippe and his cohorts to keep working.

Hi Magicplug,

Perhaps dreamsmith could have been more gentle asking for about for the next version. But the fact is that people are eager for that version - because they are very excited about the potential of this product. Pianoteq is great - I love it. The technology is so exciting, that like many other people of this forum I am starting to believe that the day where I could carry my favorite piano sound in a laptop is not very far.
It is already probably the most playable piano emulation out there. But regardless of where the competition stands - it still doesn't sound like a Stienway D. Let's not go that far - it isn't "even" as rich and powerful as my humble upright yamaha U1. The recordings we hear all includes steinways and bosendorfers. But most of us can't affort $100k+ pianos. Still we dream about having the sound of the recordings we love. So in that sense - i couldn't say pianoteq has no room for improvement.

Well, it's a recurring theme here I think.  Too many times have critical opinions / remarks have been dismissed and often attacked by other users, that frankly it almost sounds as if there is no way to get the point across. (I'm not just going to be critical, but also point out what we can learn from this, so put your weapons down for a sec)

Pianoteq's audio output is still off.  It's very audible, and I guess it's not really worth the trouble of getting all scientific about it.  Sure, different pianos sound different, in different rooms, mic configurations, etc..  there are variables.  But just like how humans can tell resemblance between family members, there are certain traits you look for, and unfortunately, it hasn't cleared the minimal set.  That is why there are so many supporters who truely believe in the potential of pianoteq, but still will not use it in production.  While pianoteq's sound generation mechanism is by far the most advanced of all the soft pianos of today, its sound output is far from being the most superior.

But, I think pianoteq points out a very important issue that is mostly ignored in sample based pianos, which is playability.  Many times, sample based pianos will result in more realistic results.  If you wanted a realistic middle C at velocity 64, trigger the sample and you will get the actual recorded note.  You can't get more real than that.  But when you play the sample lib as an instrument, the disconnect is so bad, that regardless of how good the end result may sound, the whole system becomes ineffective as an instrument. (or a medium of expression, in a general sense)

This is exactly where pianoteq excels at, and is what I think draws so many of its users.  It certainly draws me. (though I don't use it)  The connect between input from keys, to the output is much greater than sample libs.  And to some, that connection is very well worth the loss of realism in the result.  Now before you all attack me for the use of the word "realism", I want to say that the true innovation of pianoteq is exactly this.  It told the world that there was more to player-instrument connection.  That to some, the experience of playing the instrument is equally (if not even more) important that just getting quality output.  It's a big shift, and an important one.

I have been following pianoteq from day one, playing demo after demo, trying to pinpoint what wasn't working.  I have posted several times here, and many other forums, each time being politely suggested to tweak some more, or perhaps record my best efforts, and point out what isn't right with it.  And I actually have attempted this many times.  And each time, I cannot come up with anything that remotely is worth posting... perhaps only getting 4-5 consecutive notes to sound good.  (and usually it becomes a credibility issue.  I studied audio dsp programming)  Obvious problem being that a set of parameters usually only work for specific zones, and finetuning for a specific zone usually throws off all the other zones.

I really do wish I had the time to write a detailed critique, and a list of things to improve.  (although I'm no specialist in piano physical modeling, but again, I do have heavy technical background in DSP)  But frankly, it takes too much time.  And that's with the mentality of a "betatest"...  I can't imagine using it in production if every tweak took that long.  So that's a big obstacle for me.

Pianoteq is a great product, no doubt about it.  I really wish with all my heart that pianoteq will become the world's best softpiano.  But it's just not there, and each time a critical opinion gets bashed down, it's one step further.  I'm sure the dev team is working away at the next update / version.  It just seems to me that the userbase shooting down criticism is more than called for.

When I compared sounds, I did several things;

1.  Downloaded demos songs produced by the sample manufacturer and posted on his website.  I would assume that they've put forth their best effort to make their product look good.  I concentrated on classical piano because midi files for these are easy to find, and often are available in several versions.

2.  Obtained the same songs (the midi files) and rendered them in Pianoteq to wave files.

3.  Using a wave editor, I loaded a number of songs, and compared them carefully by switching from song to song.

Invariably, the results were the same:

1.  Some notes of the sample created files went "boonk".  That's about as accurate as I can describe it verbally.  Note that the "boonk" sound was in the bass, where samples might theoretically be better because they are actual recordings, and bass notes are much more difficult for render than high notes (this applies to PT).

2.  In general the songs rendered with samples had little or no sustain.  This is interesting because they claim to have used concert grand pianos which have wonderful sustain.

3.  In general the songs rendered with samples displayed little if any Sympathetic Resonance, something all acoustic pianos have, and in the case of a concert grand, the SR is wonderful and rich.

4.  Even the supposedly best sample (Ivory) did not have the clarity that the PT rendered piece did.  By clarity I mean that individual notes can be heard in a chord or complex passage.  The sample based songs are seldom as clear.

Now to address your comment in regard to multiple velocities.  Pianoteq already does this; each note is generated with the velocity associated with the note.

The best samples (as far as I know) have three velocity layers.  As we know, the harmonic output of an acoustic piano varies with velocity (harsher at high velocities, mellower at lower velocities).  In order to accurately duplicate this tonal range, a sample library would need many more levels of velocity sampling.  Keep in mind that midi has 128 levels for every parameter including velocity.

Sample libraries already are huge - I don't know how many velocity levels would suffice, but in theory they should have 128 levels.  Perhaps only 100 would suffice, but if they are gigantic with 3 levels, please don't try to find a computer that could handle 100 levels.  Perhaps Big Blue, the chess champion, could do it, but it's currently beyond my budget capabilities.

I've posted this site before, but it's certainly worth listening to:

http://www.purgatorycreek.com/

When I downloaded the midi file for this "musical selection" and rendered it in Pianoteq, mine sounded better than the one for Pianoteq on the site.  I'm wondering if it was done with an older version of Pianoteq.

In summary, when I compared the sounds "out of the box", I literally laughed out loud at some of the sample based sounds, the rest were just bad.

If you have found a better sound, please let me know what created it.

Glenn

I absolutely agree with and second kensuguro and creart in their observations, which I think are essentially the same truths I was attempting to articulate.  Having a (perfectly reasonable) issue with the way in which criticism is voiced, or its coherence, is of course another matter entirely.

I had meant to add that I long for the sort of 'randomness' in key to key characteristics preserved in the fully chromatic-sampled instruments, and which I understand may be made available in a future 'Pro' version of Pianoteq.  That will, I expect, be a minor revelation for this user.

Helpful criticism is good! 

Cheers,

Stephen

This is a good point - I rendered a friend's midi file for him because he wasn't at all happy with the Giga results.

His comments:

1.  Silky smooth in the upper registers.

2.  Bass doesn't have enough "edge" to the sound when played hard.   I won't disagree, because it doesn't - it's too smooth.

3.  His most interesting comment is just what you've pointed out (he is an excellent pianist AND a piano technician that rebuilds pianos); he said:  "It's almost too perfect from note to note - real pianos aren't that way - the copper wound strings in particular can have large tonal variations".

I wouldn't disagree with this third comment, but I replied to him, "if you were designing and building a piano and could control absolutely everything, would you purposely put in some notes that were a bit off?"  He laughed and said "no".

I stand corrected on the number of layers in the larger sample libraries.  Ten or twelve layers?  they must weigh a few kilos.

Should I be holding my breath for someone to direct me to a better sound that comes out of my computer?  PM me; I won't be offended.

Hey Glenn
I meant to say (and thought I did) that the Pianoteq's full velocity range is a lot better than the velocity switching of sample libraries.
Don't get me wrong - I love Pianoteq - I do miss some things in the sound at this moment (although I'm still in the process of better understanding it's editing possibilities and fine tuning my sounds) but I expect it to only get better... hoping my computer will keep up with what's needed though.
But using a sample library with up to 20 layers perhaps is going to give your hardware a hard time too....

And apart of this all... what is perfect? If someone would consider some type of Steinway to be perfect, put a couple of them together and see what differences are between them all... it might show that 'perfect' can be pretty relative.

I am not that much of a 'purist' myself - I want a sound that I like and one I can use in my recordings and live play and is flexible... so to me Pianoteq fulfilled that needs.

cheers
Hans

Pianoteq was/is worth the purchase cost to me.  Compact & heavily tweakable with great sympatheticness.... Extremely realistic compared to a professionally miked grand or sample library -no.  But there's caveats with both.  Choose and/or combine your flavors.  Modeling the wood interacting with the floor with the aging and imperfect wires with the train going by.....  a little too tough as a perfect and variable computer model.  That's why I've mentioned many times that I think the answer is more in the use of post processing to create rumble, bark in high velocity low registers, sub harmonic frequencies emanating from the wood... reverberating FM synthesized metallic high tings for the sound you get from a hard release on the highest notes in a reverberant room....  maybe mic modeling technology.  My guess is that the pianoteqnicians are working a bit in this area, because I fear a purists computer model would dim the lights on half the planet and I'd rather the mental resources were put into the search for dark matter.

As an engineer also, I tend to agree with your comment about models being "wrong", although perhaps "not quite correct" may be closer.  Having said that, a model is never completely accurate (in structural we often model for testing but realize that scaling isn't always perfect).

I happen to firmly believe that the present model is a compromise, and that's why it could be better than it is.

Why compromise, one might ask, and what would the compromise be?

I'll guess - the mathematician/technician/developer knows what's missing - the criticism has been "thinness" or lacking something that doesn't quite emulate a piano.

I find the treble smooth (a friend says it's 'silky smooth'), but still not quite full enough.

Many on the forum have identified the bass (as has my pianist friend) as being weak.  I won't disagree.

So why hasn't MOdartt fixed it?

As an engineer, I long ago realized that every design is a compromise - whether it's conflicting requirements, or the limitation of available resources that can be thrown at a project.

So why can't Pianoteq be better?  Because not all of us have or can afford the computer that could handle the computations that are required to more accurately emulate the bass of a concert grand piano.

It was said for years that a computer would never reach the ability of a grand master at the game of chess, and for the longest time I watched as Spassky and others beat the computer.

Then a few years ago, the computer programmers "got even" - they knew how to program the software, but the computers available couldn't handle the computations - and their break came with "Big Blue" which has (to my knowledge) beaten the world's best chess masters.

Back to P/T; it's been known for quite a few years that when at least twelve or so partials plus the fundamental are included in a generated piano tone, it is difficult to distinguish from an acoustic tone.  Bass tones are the most complex and require more computations than high notes.

I suspect that if Pianteq was programmed for "Big Blue", the sound would shock us.

It might even be possible to have two versions of Pianoteq - one that will run on a laptop and generate "acceptable" sounds, and a more complex one that can generate the sounds far more realistically for rendering a recorded midi file to a wave file.

I wouldn't mind if Pianoteq took longer to render a midi file to a wave, if it produced a much better sound.

I would also prefer that!

I have been waiting since the 80ties to play a piano-type INSTRUMENT on a modern keyboard. And that's what pianoteq is for me an instrument for playing with a piano-type sound.(and for the first reactive computer model really good sounding!) I'm absolutely shure that it will be getting better as long computer power is rising-and also will never reach the "real thing". And it's not important! 24 pictures/sec is not the real thing.96Khz is not the real thing. Maybe we will reach a point where the simulation is making us happy for a while. And when we get used to it, we have learned more about it and we will find another weakness in it. That's why we are here. expand the universe of experience. So this is how we can help the modart team to increase their product. No guarantee that we will ever be satisfied.
Every comment is a point of view. Sometimes it is hard to keep al the emotions out of the discussion.  I would also like to have a model which sounds similar good to a real Bösendorfer/Steinway/... I would dance a real long and happy dance if it would cost only 425€ and maby I would buy 3 licences and 5 computers with all the money I've saved, not buying a Steinway concert grand.
Actually I don't have the money for a Steinway at all. I can't buy 3 Licences and 5 copmuters. I can sit down to my pianoteq and express all my feelings and I know it's all I can ever do with each typ of instrument.
AND i totally agree with all of the comments about the lack of sound when I've played a copmplete mist.(although when I 've played a real Piano)

My conclusion: There is a lack of sound and I love to play that wonderfull instrument.

New version?-download

I've been quite happy with the "stock" C2 Chamber sound, but I do two things; I increase the Piano Size to 4.81 metres (about 15'-9"), and increase Sympathetic Resonance to +5dB (controller 17 = 80), or even a bit higher.  But I like Sympathetic Resonance (and really big pianos!!!).

With my limited exposure to maybe six or eight concert grands, the first thing I've always noticed is that the bass is proportionally stronger in a concert grand than the bass in say a six or seven foot grand.  The high treble strings in a concert grand aren't much longer than those of a six foot, but the bass strings sure are, and I can hear it.  In fact, it takes me quite a while to adapt to the stronger bass of the nine footer.

This is my reasoning for increasing the Piano Size (maybe I'm imagining it's different).

I also turn the Pianoteq reverb off and add it later in processing with my EMU 1820M (if I want it - but often I like the sound without any reverb at all).

This may help demonstrate how much we differ in taste from individual to individual.