Been watching this forum

Yeah you got that right.  I am all about it being right.

About swiss cheese:
I guess to me it doesn't make much sense to have the c4 on a 9ft sound board and d4 on a 6ft sound board.  That is what I mean by making swiss cheese out of a piano.

I think the real secret to more perfect pianos is more perfect and complex models.  I applaud what Modart is doing, and I know it is way to much to ask of them to make a piano that has the same warmth and characteristics as Gary's new Authorized Steinway.  I mean, that is like asking ILM to make a 2 minute CG movie that is indistinguishable from a live video shot.  There is no question that the CG film was produced by computer generated graphics and that the video was shot by a video camera with real people in front of the lens.  Know what I mean?  I will say that there is a certain purity to the Pianoteq sound that is quite desirable.  Just like CG is to a movie.  Speaking of CG, WOW! go see "Monster Vs Aliens" but make sure you see the new IMAX 3D version of it.  Not the regular Digital, nor the regular Digital 3D, but the IMAX Digital 3D.  Talk about CG has arrived!  It is desirable, and beautiful, but still not real.

Let me say this about Pianoteq, it is, bar none, the most realistic piano I have ever heard in my life as far as actually sitting at a piano.  On that note they have arrived!  What I really want though, is the sound you would get from a recording studio.  After all, that is the sound that we all hear on all the great music recordings that come out of studios.  It is that type of sound that I would like to see Modart work on next.  It is that type of sound that will cause the masses to buy Pianoteq without hesitation.  I have tried putting it inside of convolution reverbs such as Apple's "Spaces", but I still cannot seem to get it right.  I will continue to work with it whenever I have the time.  You know, I bet if I played Pianoteq though a pair of studio monitors on a wooden floor completely dry inside of a nice sounding room it would be pretty impressive.  But for live stage performance, who wants to go back to micing the piano again?  Ha, maybe we should!

tbrim,

I think the per-note adjustments will make a big difference.  In a real piano, the hammer hardness and voicing are not consistent across all keys.

Yes, many of us would like more presets.  But having per-note adjustments is arguably a bigger feature than more presets.

If you spend a lot of time with all the possible adjustments, you'd know the "turning the same piano sound into swiss cheese" isn't true.  With the current adjustments that are possible, it's possible to make the piano sound very very different.  The big problem is that you can tweak a certain range of notes to sound exactly the way you want to, but that usually ruins the sound of another part of the keyboard.  Even something like being able to divide the keyboard into 5-6 zones and adjusting the settings for each of those zones would be a huge improvement.

This is, essentially, true.

What you want, I believe, is what I think I want, and that is an additional post process that adds "mic modeling" to the output.  So that you are not only adding reverb and early reflections but also clean tube saturation, tape saturation -any number of processes used in a recording studio to add meat to the sound before bits or tape.  There are audio plugins that offer this and, not being a purist, I've been trying things like a sans amp VHT bass amp simulator pedal -which I really want to actually apply via footpedal control on hard fortissimo.  But I believe this is the difference between Pianoteq and those studio recordings.  And we really don't want Pianoteq to be processed like that initially, but if some of that were available as a post process within Pianoteq, we probably could take advantage of it.  But it's so subjective and I wouldn't want to derail Modartt's main objective.

I agree with EvilDragon, thinking it best to add the tube and tape saturation and other plugins later in the chain. Let those plugin developers focus on getting their sounds right, and Pianoteq focus on perfecting their piano. Which, by the way, I bought myself yesterday

Right, which is basically what happens when you run Pianoteq in a host and then run the Pianoteq outputs through plugins after the fact.

Cellomangler,
Interesting what you were saying about the VHT Bass Amp simulator.  There are definitely a lot of options out there.  For what its worth here are some thoughts of mine, please hear me out because I have both critical thoughts and thoughts of praise:
Pianoteq to me sounds like a soundboard fixed to a metal harp sitting on four poles in the middle of a room.  Like the perfect laboratory piano and perfect mechanics in every way.  Pianoteq is what every piano manufacturer has ever dreamed of achieving during the invention and revolution of the piano.  If Pianoteq had been around during the time that Steinway & Sons were making a name for themselves, they would have thrown in the towel, and then perhaps the original Pianoteq version 1 would have been the sound that we all desire to achieve today rather than what we desire today being the Steinway.  Why is it that we hold on to certain sounds so tightly that we cannot just accept dynamic sterile sound of the Pianoteq piano?  What is warm? and what is sterile?  It all has to do with the emotions that are evoked from the sounds that we hear.  Please don't anyone take offense to the fact that I consider the Pianoteq sound to be rather sterile.  That is just my opinion based off of my emotional response to the sound that I hear.  And yes I do have a pair of studio monitors.  Now, moving on:
It's like there is some kind of complexity that is missing.  Like the difference between a sine wave and a flute.  Maybe by having individual control over every note will be distracting enough to keep your mind from picking out the simplicity of the model.  I am not saying that the model is simple by any means, but in light of the complexity of a real piano, the Pianoteq model is very simple.  I desire that Steinway sound, but within Pianoteq.  Because no matter how complicated sampling technologies become, sampling will never produce a living breathing instrument and for that matter neither will virtual modeling.  But aahh, virtual modeling is wonderful!  Thank you Modartt for listening and doing what you do!  You are doing it very well, but like I said before, I am a musician and I desire a particular sound.  I always do hope that the purpose of Modartt is to focus all of it's energies on making the most complete virtual piano.  Bells and whistles are great, but what I really selfishly desire is wonderful pianos.  Keep up the good work.

One important note:
I am here to learn from all of you, and I welcome your thoughts.  I place myself above no one, I only have opinions based off of my experiences.

I find playing pianoteq on the "binaural" output setting whilst wearing headphones is a MUCH more satisfying experience than playing it over loudspeakers -
with speakers, my brain always tells me the sound is not coming from a big wooden contraption in front of my head,
which in binaural mode, it begins to almost believe it

However I'm sure many of us are still longing for the "knackered old upright" piano model with much more creaky rattly wood and dull rubbish strings and dodgy hammers

No argument there... if it is an "either this or that" situation.  But what some of us want is just the ability to dial in a smidge of knackerness upon occasion.  By all means, I'd like the concert pianists to have the main influence upon the Pianoteqnicians.  It's kind of funny.  Folks talk about the model constantly improving - but this inherently implies moving away from purity and toward (or again, the ability to dial it in) more of the random inconsistencies and vibrations which are part of nature and complex physical structures.  I know this is discussed ad nauseum, but it is at the crux of modeled instrument design and you don't want to get me started on the sad state of alfalfa sprouts....

Tbrim:

Take your time on this purchasing thing - there is nothing more regretful than a rushed decision.

Time spent researching (listening) is time well spent.  To this end, I am replying to your e-mail request (Rhapsody In Blue - in three parts is on its way to you as I write this).

This was rendered in real time using the C3 Binaural preset with some modifications:

String length = 2.90
Impedance = 1.25
Direct Sound = 0.50
Sympathetic Resonance = 3
Dynamics = 40
Headphones centered over the widest part of the soundboard, and vertically at a standing position (just under the lid).

I found the midi file on the internet - can send it if you wish.

There is a sample site (which I can't find now) that has a posted mp3 of Rhapsody In Blue.  The performer has done a good job IMO, but the sample rendering is a bit on the dreadful side (again IMO).

If you prefer classical music, like Beethoven or Chopin, let me know.

Glenn