Some healthy competition (Page 1 of 4)

I agree it sounds great and has some nice features. I don't see why Pianoteq shouldn't be just as good though (new version due out soon!)

I suspect the V-Piano is going to be very, VERY expensive too!

Have Modartt some role on that? A agreement between both?

Or it's just a kind of copy of Pianoteq?  Industrial spy, or something else...  ????

I still feel some thin timbre, like in Pianoteq.

I bet they paid to use Pianoteq technology on that.

If you are right, and this is another research, a own Roland's technology, probably you will never see their technology on a software, since they are no fools to lose hardware market .

By they way, have it a Steinway or Bosendorfer emulation???? I don't think so.

http://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthread...nd_V_Piano

But what we talk about is to use more processor applied to a more complex algorithm, able to render a more natural sound.

I still suspect Modartt it's involved with this Roland V-Piano.

certainly agreed!  Like you, I've been searching for a physmod piano since quite a while ago (10 years), it was just a matter of time.  I'm just so glad Roland was able to pull it off.  I don't care who builds it, I just want a good physmod piano.

Actually you bring up an interesting idea.  I wouldn't mind if there was a custom OS, perhaps loosely built on linux or something, that turns any PC box into a dedicated physmod piano machine.  I'm sure that'll squeeze an extra drop or two of performance, not to mention stability.

Wow, I'm very impressed. I think it will be very expensive though.
Different settings for limited keyboard ranges is also what I would like to see in the next version of PianoTeq (hopefully the standard version...). The "metallic sound" setting too.

Anyway, I don't see any reason for PianoTeq to keep features and realism down for the sake of low power computers. A "simulation complexity" slider could be added so that people with more powerful computers could get advantage of their processing power.

so you're saying possible to achieve better results on a cpu, if a better model could be written.  Sounds cool.  It would be very convenient to have the synth running on the cpu if possible...  of course, if the results could par or be better than v-synth or any other hardware.

Great to hear the comparison mpegs: PianoTeq clearly creates an equally realistic sound. (But they do sound different? Is the Roland a little brighter, or closer? Probably only the settings specific to the presets...)

Regardless, Roland doesn't seem to have published a list of all of the parameters yet, or even jpegs of the software editor. From what little I've read, there may be only a few working models--at namm, they don't have one available for people to play at their booth, just the one played in the demo videos.

I have to admit that I do understand the appeal of having everything inside the keyboard. But the V-Piano seems to have a fairly small screen and one knob devoted to everything. I guess you press a button to choose a parameter and then use the knob to adjust it. So the software editor turns out to be essential for deep editing--otherwise, you can't see the settings for more than one parameter at a time?

Interesting comparison - the scales done by the Roland and Pianoteq.

First I must confess that when I listened to them I didn't know which was which (couldn't find any hints in the texts, so it was a blind test).

So I went back to the Roland video, and recorded the scale myself on my wave editor as it was played.  Using back and forth comparison (and looking at the wave shapes which can be very revealing) I concluded that the A-scale is the Roland.  The clincher was that the first note of the scale I recorded myself and the first note of the A-scale version is either out of tune or the pianist struck two notes simultaneously.

The Pianoteq scale doesn't suffer from this.

And again, after listening to the three scales over and over, I'm staying with Pianoteq thank you very much.  I have nothing against Roland, in fact I'm using my second Roland DP, and like their products (except for their manuals), and my keyboard touch is very good.

The advantages I could see with the Roland-V are:

1.  Being able to map out different areas of the keyboard (splits), and

2.  Having one dedicated package that doesn't rely on components (computer, sound card, monitor, cables).

The disadvantage will almost surely be the price - someone guessed at around $7,000 US.  This wouldn't surprise me.

I listened closely to the mp3 A-B comparison of a C# scale passage suggested by Philippe, and, although it was not clearly specified, by listening again to the Roland video (about halfway at the Vintage Piano title) I found that probably A was the Roland instrument and B pianoteq with the Erard preset.

I was not sure because A may sound a bit like one of the earlier C1 or C2 preset which I find have some less realistic sections. I think Philippe might have chosen this passage because it may show the progress in the naturalness of the presets over the years. The Erard is much more natural-sounding and I don't know if this is due to better analysis techniques of the real instrument or rendering possibilities added with each versions.

Also, A suffers from a very thin sounding upper register, reminding me of the earlier looping sample pianos when memory was limiting the length of high frequency loops. If you look closely at the Roland video, you will find that most of the playing is in the low to mid registers with arpeggios to the high notes with pedal on.

I play on a 10 year old Yamaha P80, which was probably one of the most natural sounding at the time, and I was very surprised when I stumbled upon this forum entry which compared the P80 itself and pianoteq on smal Chopin excerpts:

http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultim...tml#000003

Now these examples focus on the mid and lower part of the register which explains why both sound very similar to my ear. Maybe Roland has some work to do still...

On the cpu usage, I would like to say that on my Windows XP machine (AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2 GHz dual core with 2 GB memory) there is absolutely no problem, pianoteq using only 10-15% of cpu at idle and 25-30% while playing the included Chopin waltz at 48kHz sampling and with unlimited polyphony.

I can't see why Roland needs 4 cpus (if they are all used for computing the model and not simply controlling the keyboard, pedals etc.) unless their model lacks the algorithmic optimisations that surely went into pianoteq and are unique to it. It is one thing to program equations in a straightforward fashion and another to devise new ways of calculating a mathematical model. I suspect a lot of very clever programming went in the design of pianoteq to obtain such a good product and not so much in a simplification of the model itself. (I may be wrong of course...)

I say this because I did quite a lot of scientific programming myself and I remember accelerating by a factor of 100 a badly written program with simple factoring techniques. As a better example, consider the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) algorithm which is about 100 times faster than the original DFT (Discrete Fourier Transform). Efficient programming is important and cannot be entirely compensated by faster cpus.

Sorry for the long post! Sometimes there is a lot to say...

This is absolutely so true, and also a reason why we still love Pianoteq.

I have nothing against Roland, I just don't "gel" well with their gear. But props for making a modelled piano instrument. It's not easy, we all know that.

Let's see what the rest of the Big 3 has to say.

lol, a loyal group of users.  that's some strong following there!

I checked out the demo before I went to NAMM and made sure to stop and see this, as I have too many libraries, but not a single one I can use for everything. Funny as it seems, Black Grand is still my choice in an ensemble. But for solo work it lacks the third hand ( sostenuto ) that is so vital for so many styles.
Modartt's pedals are simply the best, and Roland has now equality on that aspect. But it does have a very good Piano sound, but still lacks the editabilty that I would like to see. Downside of the Roland is it's ridiculous price.
I am sure because of the R & D involved, the hardware and the hilarious video of the Scientists wearing the white coats. I can't believe that they think there's people who actually believe this farce.
Dear Modartt guys......do you have to wear these silly coats and gloves to carry around radioactive chips? Ir's absurd and personally insulting to anyone who just wants a great product w/o all of the overhead and hype.
I find that the global editing does not help on these modelled instruments, as one tweak to change the sound in the upper ocatves has a pronounced effect on the entire range of notes.
The action and sound of the V Piano are good.
I think Modartt can in time do even better.
Since I love your pedals, and the idea of having 4 or 5 great models sharing a single instance and MIDI channel, I think Modartt can make Roland sweat it's huge R & D they have out into the V Piano. I still don't like the time based effects of either, but the option to close that and use the resources for other chores is great.
I also played the VAX77 and if Modartt could implement the new MIDI CC# 88 it would surely topple the competition.
Playing the V Piano I can only hear 5 to 6 different timbres using ppp to sfz. The VAX77 allowed me to play 8 to 9 using a Receptor and Ivory Piano. I don't care much for the Ivory although it sounds good, there again they seem to think sostenuto pedals won't be needed, since Piano players don't buy software,...I suppose. I beg to differ.
But the action on the VAX77 is weird to me. It does pushback on my fingers like a real Piano but pushing down would take a little getting use to as there is no resistance. So they have half of the equation.

I still think a nice Fatar keybed in a controller that uses the MIDI 2 CC#88, w/ a future Modartt will be the ticket. Until then I will buy hardware synths and DSP racks while I wait.

I am very optimistic though. If Roland releases a reasonably priced 1U of V Piano, it would still be quite expensive, probably around half of the price of the V Piano.

I say Modartt has a great advantage here, and time is on their side.

Orevua,

TJV

For radioactive chips we feel more comfortable with this kind of suit:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/img/radioactive.jpg

Concerning my previous post, the guesses were correct:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...Ascale.mp3
was extracted from the beginning of the third Roland video, and
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...Bscale.mp3
was made with a Pianoteq version under work.

I'd like to see Korg nailing Yamaha and Roland with this, as I'm a Korg fanboy actually

I've been having trouble hearing clicks while playing live or playing a midi file in real time (no problems rendering to wave).  I've gone to Production Forums for help (the EMU forum) and have discussed the problem with Niclas.

After reading your comment above, I "killed" AVG, and installed Avast (which is easier to disable), and it seems to have solved the problem.

So - a big thank you for the tip about "virus scanner crawling" the HDD.

Unfortunately, my "music computer" is also my "photography computer", so it must share resources with Pianoteq.

Glenn

Where were you two days ago when I needed help?  LOL

Might have a look at it.  Thanks.

Glenn

I am not spending another dime on worthless Libraries or hardware again, as I am weary of the same crap.
I look to Modartt to rescue me w/ stinged instrument Phys. Mod.

"We wish we could give you a good estimation but unfortunately that is difficult as the new version is not fully developed and tested. These things take time but let us just say that 6 months or sooner is not unrealistic."

That was posted by Fogwall in another thread on 21/10/08. Obviously there is no guarantee that this was an accurate estimate though, there's always room for delays in software development!

Excellent! Thanks for the news!

Seeing the new V-Piano, $6000 at B&H, weighing in at 83 pounds, and if fully hooked up to its 4 outs (spread your speakers about), this is a cumbersome affair. I'll wait a few years, thank you. So here is my shaggy dog tale: I own three grand pianos (Baldwin Concert Grand, 9'; Yamaha C7, 7'6", and a 7" foot Kimball I put into public places - a "junk" grand). I own the Ivory software, the NI software grand, Pianteq, and use other software pianos for varied work. I love Pianoteq but like ALL software pianos it too falls short in a most important way. On  an acoustic grand piano play and hold down one key (mid register) and listen to how the note/sound develops. The sound will evolve through several audible slow moving "waves", the first wave deep, rising sharply from the "bottom" of its curve; a second wave, less deep, wider, slower rise, third wave, less deep, even wider, slower rise. We are seldom educated, in our early years, to listen for these waves. In the beginning and end these waves are what creates personality/aesthetics of a piano. If you play two notes, slowly, playing the second note just as the first wave of the first note reaches its bottom, you will "feel" that second note entering into you in a powerful, elemental, emotional way. Were you to play that second note at the top, or start of the second wave, a non-emotional response, will be evoked. In ceremonial bell ringing (as the Buddhists use), the striking of the bell is given to those who instinctually know how. The bells repetitive rings are at the top of the waves, ceremonial in "feel", not at the bottom of the waves. I was first out of the gate to get Ivory, and yes, nice sound, NO waves, no true cyclic waves present. Good rhythmic playing depends upop circadean cycles. The little gears in a watch ticking back and forth so that every so often a bigger gear moves, that will move until the biggest gear moves. The same with playing and holding one note, very very slowly, to playing rapidly and "floating" the sound in a circadean way. I play at many kinds of events, church being one of them.  If only Pianoteq could find the "waves" - I latched on to Pianoteq because it was original, it was a "new" generation of piano. Just duplicate the sound of one note and it's first three waves. THAT will be most satisfying.

disregard

I'm also curious, and would like to hear a longer mp3 example of the upcoming version.

But perhaps Philippe want to keep some suspense clime aorund here.

I bet they are taking so long cause they want to make a very nice surprise for us.   A fine improviment in sound timbre, and several new features on interface with new adjusts.
Just my bet...