Topic: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

I had written a message about this already, but deleted it because I wanted to experiment further.

But I'm curious again. Do you feel that the low end of most Pianoteq models is a bit thin? Not that it sounds BAD, but when I hit a real piano in the lower end with all my might I can fill a large room with the thick rumble. With Pianoteq, I feel that I am possibly being limited.

I feel like I'm just missing something. So that's why I'm asking here. Keep in mind I'm still learning Pianoteq and I'll be doing MUCH more messing around with it. But what are your thoughts and ideas on getting the low end as thick and responsive and "growling" as a real piano?

It's almost like the velocity layers don't go as high or something. Does that make sense?



Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

well, this could have a lot to do with the way you're listening to it.

What kind of amp/speakers are you playing the sound through?



Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

I'm playing it through some Truth monitors(8" woofers) in my home studio at this time. I do have other pianos, both sample based and otherwise, and I do know the sound I'm looking for. Sorry if I didn't describe it very well. It was quite late at the time.

I've had only a limited time with Pianoteq so far though, and will no doubt learn soon what I'm missing. But if there are any tips to pass along, they are appreciated!


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

I found that making the piano size unusually bigger adds some rumbling sound in the lower register.  I also increase lower harmonic sliders a bit to add more body and increase the cutoff slider to add more brilliance.  And to make this not affect the middle and upper register, I created separate piano sessions using splits for different ranges.

I'm now experimenting creating splits using sounds from different presets with interesting result.  I'm using Erard for bass and treble because I can easily create rumbling bass sound and twinkling brilliance of the upper registries.  I can't get good enough middle register to my ears using Erard, but C2 sits very well between Erard's bass and treble.  I'm still tweaking it, but I like the result so far.


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

BRMStudios wrote:

I'm playing it through some Truth monitors(8" woofers) in my home studio at this time. I do have other pianos, both sample based and otherwise, and I do know the sound I'm looking for. Sorry if I didn't describe it very well. It was quite late at the time.

Man, Berhinger ought to be sued for that brand name... talk about false advertising! tongue

Actually, I've got a pair of truths 82031's in my office; they're not horrible monitors but I would definitely not rely on them for production, since they pick up all sorts of crazy electrical interference and have kind of a "farty" low end.  At home (where I actually get to play piano), I have a pair of KRK RP5's, and they sound great.  Actually I notice the opposite effect as you do; the low ends on many of the presets are absolutely booming, and the hi's are a bit thin... so I usually end up tweaking the presets a bit to taste.

Also, call me weird, but I don't really trust or edit the pianoteq EQ.  Something about it just doesn't feel right in comparison to editing the actual synthesis parameters.


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

The Ambience Reverb has a preset called Mairo-Rumble that you might like for adding thunder. It emphasizes the lower roar but still sounds good in the upper registers. By default, the preset is really wet. You'll probably want to raise the Dry and lower the Wet slider. (This preset, if you set it fairly dry, sounds really good even if you don't need a lot of thunder\rumble.)

Regardless, the sound is great and the creator only asks for a donation to support his work:



Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

I posted an mp3 showing a 3 way split with Erard in lower register, C2 chamber in mid register and Erard in upper register.  It's still a bit rough, but it shows that you can get rumbling bass while maintaining subtle mid and upper range.

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p … rardC2.mp3


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

Hi  BRMStudios

    Had you tried my FXP called Dynamic thunder S. Erard.fxp ?

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p … 86bd174267

   I prepared it to try to compensate what I feel like a lack of loudness in the trebble for strong strikes in single keys.


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

abiharbani and Beto-music,

Both of these instruments sound good. They remind me of just how much we can change the sound. It's great to be able to mix and match presets by creating splits.

abiharbani--will you be posting the file with the splits? (Is it a Cantabile file?)


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

I'll post the cantabile file later tonight.  I also use compressor in my cantabile session (TC Compressor) to help make the sound louder without worrying about clipping.  It also adds some color that I particularly like.  I'll see if I can find a freebie compressor that can have similar effect and I'll post both versions of .cantabile file: with and without compressor.


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

I uploaded 2 cantabile files for Erard & C2 3 way split hybrid.  One version utilizes BLOCKFISH compressor (http://www.digitalfishphones.com/main.p … ;subItem=5)

I'm not sending sympathetic resonance across multiple splits in this version mainly because my laptop can't handle the load.

I also created velocity curve in midi filter (Edit -> Midi Filters -> Global Input).  In there you can define velocity curve that can match your keyboard.  Currently it's setup to match curve of Roland JV-80.  You can create multiple velocity curve profiles in this window and enable only one that you're using and disable the rest of the profiles that you're not using.  This velocity curve profile is pretty powerful, it lets you define minimum and maximum input and output and curvature.


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

Guys-about the growl. Have you played with the M1 Rock preset lately? I opened it tonight after not having tried it for months, and discovered a sound I really like. Try using the VL_Chamber settings on it, and on the Options menu, increase the Key Release Duration to 2 or 5.

Lots of growl and presence in the bass. At the very least, the bass for this preset could be used in a split to give more thunder.

Can't believe I'm just now learning to use this preset.

(I just added an fxp called Rock for Solo Playing to the Files area that uses this preset.)

Last edited by Jake Johnson (15-04-2008 18:04)


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

Thanks for the replies guys. Sorry for my little absence. Being out of town and work-related stuff really caught me up for a bit.

I've messed around quite a bit more with Pianoteq since I was last here, and will also try all the suggestions and presets that have been given.

I'll post back if I have any questions!


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?


Are you getting better results now?


Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

I am getting some better results, but had decided to play a little more with how each setting affects the others to come up with the best solution. I'll post an fxp of my results when I "get there".



Re: Not enough "thunder" in the low end?

Compare the surface of a piano soundboard with the woofer surface of average speaker cabinets. From that perspective, it is only logical that an acoustic piano, even a small one, would fill the room more mightily.

Play PTQ via a PA system with ample bass, and you can get quite a bit of "rumble". Whereas it is not solely the low frequencies (which are actually very solid in PTQ) that make the "thunderous" impression on a real grand. I think there are cross-references (or -modulations) amongst various parameters and frequencies involved that may not have been perfectly implemented yet.

It has also to do with the exact behaviour of treble and midrange and a certain "saturation" or distortion effect (in lack of a better term) that a real piano can still sound considerably more aggressive, "thundrous" or "bity" than PTQ does (PTQ still being a bit on the "decent" side).

This is the same with every emulation I have heard so far. be it Hammond organ or brass -- most are already brilliant in many ways (like PTQ), but all of them seem to lack the last bit of "edge". Will they ever get this done? I hope so. After all, who knows where audio software programming will be 5ys from now?

This is, of course, not to say that PTQ today wouldn't already be a very expressive instrument. Just today, I had a jazz gig, and again it was a pleasure how exactly and dynamically this fine piece of software reacts to my playing. It would actually take an excellent grand piano to equal that (while that would, in today's situation, simply have been too loud to begin with).

Add some more "thunder" as requested here (or "dirt"), and we're approaching a piano larger than life.

BTW., playing with bass and drums, I am actually using a rather small speaker box (two 6.5" drivers + tweeter) and this is quite enough for moderate levels.