Topic by stephenphillips

  • Avatar
  • stephenphillips
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 16-02-2008
  • Posts: 24

Topic: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

I wasn't expecting to do this but it just sort of happened while I was experimenting with the various parameters.  I couldn't seem to get any EQ working on the trial version, so I opened it in Logic (7) and worked on it there, as well as swapping L/R (for quasi-audience or mic perspective), adding some Space Designer reverb and 'Exciter' and some compression and delay.  All this was after an extended tinker with the Pianoteq parameters, an extraordinary range.  I must say I don't usually play (or listen to) this sort of piano sound and music, but there you go.

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...20Pony.mp3


Restricting myself to the white keys for safety (that's for my technique AND to dodge the few missing notes in the trial version) I figured I could do worse than call the little piece "White Pony".  My (sadly late) friend Cameron Retchford, a brilliant cellist, used to have a CD of Brubeck with a horse on the cover, so I think that inspired me on this little excursion.

In isolation, some of the notes below middle C sound a little odd, but in context it doesn't seem to show.  I certainly enjoyed playing with this 'studio mid-size grand' patch that I made up—and several dozen other pianos on the way there.  Maybe it would be nice to be able to get a little more 'fizzy' ping on the really hard strikes, perhaps there is a combination of settings that I have not chanced upon yet.  It seems very convincing to me, anyway.  Can you hear the strings interacting with each other and the 'hammers' under repeated hard strikes?  That is so cool, and entirely impossible with samples.  This really is an instrument (which I look forward to playing in other keys than 'C' shortly).

Having made many recordings of the Steinways at our orchestra studio using some nice microphones, fiddling around with distance and other placement considerations it's amazing to have a virtual instrument behaving so authentically.  Someone mentioned using the piano harp etc. as a kind of reverberator.  I have tried this acoustically, with solo violin etc (putting a sand-weight on the sustain pedal).  It is an interesting but I think not particularly useful effect, that is for conventional western music I mean.  For other styles, I'm sure it could be very interesting.

If anyone is interested I can try to transfer the Pianoteq settings onto an fxp file; in that way others might produce a more effective model in this style than my initial efforts have achieved.

Better get to bed, it's late,

Stephen.

Reply by Jake Johnson

  • Avatar
  • Jake Johnson
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Atlanta
  • Registered: 04-05-2007
  • Posts: 4,491

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Interesting timbre. Almost a Yamaha C7 at times. Do upload the fxp.

Looks as though we're slowing building a database of them here. I'm a little disappointed, actually, that so few people are creating and uploading mp3's and fxp's to the Files area linked at the top of this page. We can all learn from each other. Creart and I had a discussion about this. Why, given the remarkable tools in Pianoteq and the knowledge and experience of so many of the forum members, are there so few fxp's?  Only takes a few minutes to create the mp3 within the Pianoteq interface, and uploading an mp3 and the fxp only takes a minute.

Judging from the number of hits on many of the messages, there must be several hundred or thousand users. If each person created an fxp and an mp3 and uploaded them....

Reply by creart

  • Avatar
  • creart
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Alkmaar, the Netherlands
  • Registered: 17-11-2007
  • Posts: 604

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Hi Steven

Yes please post the fxp-file if you would... the sound and way of playing reminds me a lot of Bruce Hornsby... hmmm maybe he also got 'stuck on whites' (could be a good title too)
As Jake says - it's a pity that so few people really upload fxp's - maybe they just want to keep all the good stuff to themselves

Anyway if you could post the fxp and possibly give some settings that you used in Logic or even save a Logic channel setting and upload that? I'm on LogicPro myself and love your sound!

good on ya!
cheers
Hans

creart's Website

Reply by azrael4

  • Avatar
  • azrael4
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Salzburg
  • Registered: 17-09-2007
  • Posts: 200

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

I did upload mp3s and fxps but didn´t get any reactions so i stopped it. I was experementing with combinations of pianoteq layers when i started with pianoteq ( because i wasn´t very happy with the sound at the mid oktaves). Now I have got a good setting so I can do my work now. (Nuendo, altiverb,2 inst. pianoteq) I figured something out with the overtone parameters and since then it worked for me. I wanted to share this with the comunity and uploaded some fxp files with the changed overtone setting and saw many downloads ( about 500) but nobody sent a response how they use them ( esp. while i use them in a stack). I was wondering some days and then forgot about that.

so i´m whatching at the forum and find sometimes usefull links (esp. from you three guys)

so keep on searching the limit of the software ( i think you´ve found it allready).

for me it means: It´s a great Instrument for  musicians with some weakness in sound. but that may be solved by moddart some times.

The changes that i´ve made keep me playing the piano every day and I´m also happy with the middle octaves now, but others may be harder to satisfy than i am. I don´t know.

So i understand Jake Johnson beeing "a little disappointed"

greetings heinke

Last edited by azrael4 (20-02-2008 16:08)
http://www.heinke-aussenegg.com/

azrael4's Website

Reply by Jake Johnson

  • Avatar
  • Jake Johnson
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Atlanta
  • Registered: 04-05-2007
  • Posts: 4,491

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

I downloaded your Wings of Passion fxp and didn't notice anything changed in the Spectrum Profile sliders. Are you holding out on us?

Let us hear what you're working on.


(I'm working on a revision of the Sweet Bechstein, which I now hear as being far too percussive. Strange that I didn't notice how loud the hammer was and how brief the sustain was earlier.)

Reply by azrael4

  • Avatar
  • azrael4
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Salzburg
  • Registered: 17-09-2007
  • Posts: 200

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

I´ve got nothing to do with "wings of passion". I uploaded C2 Bridge_03.FXP which isn`t on the file list no more. I use it in a setting in Steinberg Nuendo but I found it playable in one instance either. (less ritchness for shure so that´s why I combine it with another instance of pianoteq)

So I´m going to upload it again for you if you don´t have it yet. velocity is to adapt to your keyboard.

I´m not holding out on anybody. So tell me what it (the FXP) does in your setting. Or what you miss in it.

I found that reducing the overtone sliders  several db´s, increases the overall dynamic of the sound.  As well as I saw that the changes made in this section didn´t do what I had expected they would. So I´m not really shure how this allgorithms work ( it was always felling like programming an old DX7). I also tried to analyze the spectrum of an Bösendorfer Sample ( which I like for it´s sound) but couldn´t get even near the curve, whatever I did with the overtone sliders. So I went back programming just with my ears and keept on changing parameters till I´ve heard nearly what I wanted to hear. But I programmed with earphones and sometimes when I was switching to my Dynaudio Speakers I wasn´t very pleased. Because the overtone changes showed me the weakness of the model. ( can´t change the overtone setting without effecting the roominformation, which is in every model different) But I understand that this is a part of the algorithm itself. Can´t change that so far! So I thought I can combine the pro`s of the changed overtone setting ( which brought more power into the mid octaves with the pro´s of the original presets (which is in my opinion richness in the bass and a natural feeling) That, what some people called "the woodiness" , I tried to get via a bösendorfer-body preset from altiverb. Which i don´t use very often (to woody for most mixes)  What I also use sometimes is voxengo´s  overtone eq (betatest version for mac/pc-download free). Not easy to use but can be very effective.

So I say: out of about 200 Fxp´s ( I used to save every mycrostep) which I´ve programmed in the first enthusiastic days of having pianoteq, I only use two or three of them now. ( I´m not a classic pianist I´ve to say!)   

So I upload two of them for you: C2 Bridge_03 and BösendorferNEU_05 (has nothing to do with a real bösendorfer. Just started to program from the bösendorfer sample I`ve mentioned above)

So have fun!

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...dge_03.fxp
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...NEU_05.fxp

http://www.heinke-aussenegg.com/

azrael4's Website

Reply by Jake Johnson

  • Avatar
  • Jake Johnson
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Atlanta
  • Registered: 04-05-2007
  • Posts: 4,491

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Sorry to confuse you with Aziraphal, who uploaded the wingsofpassion fxp.

I'll try your fxp's tomorrow. Thanks for posting them.

Reply by Jake Johnson

  • Avatar
  • Jake Johnson
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Atlanta
  • Registered: 04-05-2007
  • Posts: 4,491

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Just tried out your fxp's. I particularly like the Bos05. I applied the settings to the M1 jazz with good results. You're right--your overtone settings do increase the presence in the middle. I like the effect on the upper treble, too.

You say in your last post that you're not entirely satisfied with the results of your fxp's. Can you tell us what sounds wrong to you?

Are you trying to create a distant ambient sound? (Thus the increased dynamics setting, so soft notes are very soft?) Have you instead tried creating a concave velocity curve and then moving the dynamics slider to the left, so softer sounds are more audible? Technically, this last step reduces the range of dynamics, but in a sense it gives you a wider dynamic range when combined with a velocity curve, because you can hear a wider range of timbres. without a loss of volume. (You can also just raise the volume and decrease the dynamics if you do lose too much amplitude with your velocity envelope.)

I bring this up because I noticed that you had greatly increased the hammer hardness and the size of the instrument, so I got the impression that presence was a problem. Yet the position of the Dynamics slider and the absence of any velocity curve seemed to work against presence. (For me, using a concave velocity slope  and compensating for the loss of volume by moving the Dynamics to the left of center, so the soft notes are more audible, and then raising the overall volume, increases the presence, although I have to cycle among these settings to adjust them to get the sound I want.)

Is one of your concerns the change in the bass sound? If so, are you on a PC or a Mac? If you have a PC, you can create splits using Cantabile lite and assign different fxp's to different ranges of the keyboard. (The splits with their respective fxp's will load automatically in Cantabile once you've set it up and named the Cantabile file.) If you're on a Mac, I'm not sure what to suggest. One thing that might work--does you keyboard support splits, so you might have two instances of PianoTek running, with each being sent to a different pair of channels? (Creart--I just thought of this today,  or I would have mentioned it earlier.) Or do you have a sequencing program that would let you assign different instances of PianoTeq to different splits or channels. Or your sequencer might let you just use a midi filter to mute notes that would overlap if you had two instances of PianoTeq running with different fxp setting on each.

In any case, thanks for sharing your fxp's. Your work with the spectrum sliders opens up some interesting doors.

Last edited by Jake Johnson (21-02-2008 16:09)

Reply by azrael4

  • Avatar
  • azrael4
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Salzburg
  • Registered: 17-09-2007
  • Posts: 200

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Hi Jake!

So what you metioned about the presence is for shure the difference in your keyboards velocity action. With my keyboard the settings in the hammer hrdness section (p/m/f) work fine.
I also have to say that (I mentioned it in my last post) I use it only in NUENDO and as one part of a two layer instrument. The other layer is nearly the orig. Grand C1 deep
(just copied with shift key holding into the setting of C2 Bridge_03). When you said that there is no velo curve I have to admit that ther are deep changes on the velo curve in my nuendo presets. (the one I sent you are earlier copys and are more neutral for sharing with others) So if you are interested I´ll send you the two layer FXPs I use in nuendo. Therfore you just have to use two PT instances "without" splitting ( that´s the way I use it) The velo curve starts about 25 immediatly because I don´t want to hear a sound when playing very very soft. (as you won`t hear at a real piano) And pianoteq made strange thin stringsounds before I did that change. But you´ll have to adapt that to your keyboard.  Balance  the layers to your taste. You also can try other preset combinations (switching the preset list while holding shift key won´t lose the parameters)
But I found that the tuning is dependent on the models and sometimes doesn´t fit well.

Have you tried a convolution Reverb instead of the built in?

Or did you download the voxengo Overtone EQ? (That´s something for presence problems)

To answer your question why I´m not entirely satisfied...: I think it has something to do with the impulse. Recording a piano is not an easy job (I´m a recording engineer too) And analize the soundboard and all that stuff...I would´t like to.

The piano sound on the new herbie hancock album impressed me, but you know...I´m satisfied now. Never expected a virtual piano with that playability that soon.

So far

Heinke

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...%20TWO.fxp
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...%20ONE.fxp

http://www.heinke-aussenegg.com/

azrael4's Website

Reply by creart

  • Avatar
  • creart
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Alkmaar, the Netherlands
  • Registered: 17-11-2007
  • Posts: 604

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Hey Azrael

I am also a bit puzzled about the lack of response on this forum except for a couple of people.... the 'hard core' so to speak.
Maybe most people just register when getting the demo-software and that's it.
It's too bad I think - some more interaction might lead to better understanding of the program and better sounds from Pianoteq.

Editing in Pianoteq can be challenging at times...
The EQ setting are relative and not absolute for instance.... if you could drag the complete curve down overall by the same amount - the end result would be the same....

That's not totally the case for the spectrum sliders I believe, you do affect harmonics and with that affect dynamics and such as well...

Velocity is also of great importance here as you say.... it also means that any fxp will always sound different with somebody else since his keyboard will have a different response.
That's why I would like to have the choice of loadable velocity curves in Pianoteq - if people could then upload a specific curve for their keyboard you'd end up with a 'library' to choose from and it would only mean some minimal editing to fit your specific needs but you'd still have some basic material to work from....

I myself try to get the 'clean' Pianoteq sound as good as possible without having to rely on EQ'ing or reverbs in an other program (I could easily do that in LogicPro).
I want the standalone sound to be as close as possible - also for sharing-possibilities...
Not everyone has the option of using keyboard-splits or Cantabile or a program with Convolution Reverbs etc.
Then having the best 'standard' Pianoteq sound that you can get will only be even better if you DO have those options but you can still use it stand-alone with a proper sound.

I will have a listen to your fxps and the new Herbie Hancock album to see if that pianosound could be done....

Will take some time though - will be off on vacation until the first weekend of march...
thanx for sharing the fxps

cheers
Hans

creart's Website

Reply by Jake Johnson

  • Avatar
  • Jake Johnson
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Atlanta
  • Registered: 04-05-2007
  • Posts: 4,491

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

azrael4:

About the presence issue: I misread your settings, thinking that you had increased the hammer hardness to gain more presence. (And you mentioned wanting to get "more power into the mid octaves.")

So you're instead using the Bos05 fxp as a layer, as in an upper velocity layer on top of the default preset that you mention. (Thus the high hammer hardness settings.) Can you tell us what the velocity split point is?

That arrangement sounds interesting. In fact, if you don't mind, I'll create an item in the Wishlist for PianoTeq thread for this: the ability to assign fxp's to midi velocity layers in Pianoteq and stack them. Even without stacking them, this could be good, since we could open several instances of PianoTeq, each assigned to a different velocity layer, or load them into Cantabile or another vsti host. The load on the processor would prevent us from drifting into the world of creating 5-6 layers. Imagine how this line of thought might otherwise play out: people creating something like one of the newish 40 gig pianos with 20 layers. (Would this be back-pedaling or creating the piano version of Frankenstein's monster? Maybe not. It might be just combining the possibilities of synthesis with what has been done in sampling. "And" instead of "or." But the load on the processor would be too great.

After reading your post, I discovered that the free program Cantabile lite also lets you create velocity layers, with a separate vsti or separate instances of a single vsti on each layer. Don't know if this is of interest to you. If you are creating arrangements with several instruments, your sequencer is probably what you want, of course. But if you're just playing solo piano, you might want to check out Cantabile. Sorry to seem like such cheerleader for this program, but it really is remarkable, since you can set up the splits and velocity layers, with different fxps, give a name to the arrangement, and mix and match sets easily. Loads them fast, too: takes literally about 5 seconds, once I double-click on the Cantabile icon, to open the program and load my default 4 way split with instances of PianoTeq on each split and different fxps loaded in each instance. I'm sure this time would increase if velocity layers were added, but probably only by another second or two for each layer. (Cantabile lite is a free program that is limited only in a few ways: it only lets you create 4 splits, and it's missing a few features that are in the $25 full version, such as a random parameter function that lets you set some of the controls on any vsti to vary randomly by a user defined amount.)


Thanks for posting the fxp's. Tonight or tomorrow, I'll post the version of the M1 I created using (borrowing? stealing?) your harmonics slider settings. The sound is something I think of as a gospel piano sound: bright but rich. Not quite as metallic as a rock Yamaha C7 and not quite as liquid as a Steinway B or as growly as a Steinway D.

creart:

Any luck finding a way to create splits on a Mac? Did you read my notes\guesses about ways to do this with a software sequencer? (I rarely load one up these days, since I mainly play solo and can just open a standalone program or Cantabile and record there, but if it let you do layers like those azrael4 mentions and splits, it might be worthwhile to use the sequencer's midi controls and multiple instances of PianoTeq. Or you could buy a PC...

Reply by creart

  • Avatar
  • creart
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Alkmaar, the Netherlands
  • Registered: 17-11-2007
  • Posts: 604

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Hi Jake

Well as you I mainly play Pianoteq solo so in standalone mode...
I haven't found a single separate program for Mac that would allow the splits.
I should be able to do it in LogicPro but I use a G5 PPC for my audio which runs fine with Pianoteq in standalone but I don't think it will cope with running LogicPro AND 2 Pianoteq instances....

Apart from that I actually think that having the splits is sort of a pseudo-solution... sounds from Pianoteq should be ok within one instance or just in the standalone version. You shouldn't have to think of creative split-solutions I think... so that plus my G5's capacity have stopped me from going any further down that road yet....

And on top of all that I'm pretty busy with work at this point (being self-employed it can take the better part of the evenings as well) and need to finish stuff before going on vacation on saturday morning...
One more reason for not being as active here as I normally am, I hope I'm forgiven

Or maybe people think 'finally he's shutting up for some time '

cheers
Hans

creart's Website

Reply by azrael4

  • Avatar
  • azrael4
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Salzburg
  • Registered: 17-09-2007
  • Posts: 200

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Hi Jake!

You can also try this two (as part of a layer)

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...NEU_11.fxp
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...NEU_09.fxp

As long as your computer can handle it, layers are a solution if they solve a problem.

Nevertheless I´m awaiting the pro version where you should be able to make different overtonsettings over three or more regions. (heard about that from pianoteq-team) So meanwhile I keep on "layering" as long as my CPU does its job.

Did´nt try cantabile because I work with complex arrangements and therfore I need an
audio program.

Did you try Steinberg´s V-Stack on a mac? Or the new Live-Program from Logic8?
Could be a live-solution for mac.

heinke

http://www.heinke-aussenegg.com/

azrael4's Website

Reply by Jake Johnson

  • Avatar
  • Jake Johnson
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Atlanta
  • Registered: 04-05-2007
  • Posts: 4,491

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Thanks for the information.

I'm on a pc. Another forum member, Creart, was having trouble finding a Mac program that would let him create splits. Judging from what I read on the internet after reading your suggestion, Vstack seems to be exactly what he may want.

But as you say, once the pro version of PianoTeq is released, we won't need these vsti hosts. Things are going to get more and more interesting.

Reply by ethanay

  • Avatar
  • ethanay
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: portland, OR
  • Registered: 06-05-2008
  • Posts: 92

Re: Short Altered C2 Chamber improv mp3 posted

Speaking for myself why I haven't participated much:

Really it's because Pianoteq is my "acoustic replacement system" for reasons that are more financial and logistical (e.g., living in an  apartment soon) than anything.

I want to sit down and play, and have it sound/feel (not a clear distinction between the two) like I am playing a real piano.

I don't want to tweak parameters.  It's fun...but it's also distracting, and what I really like is when I can spend the time "tweaking" my compositions and performance instead of tweaking sound systems.

Right now I am still hammering all the kinks out of the sound system, including optimizing computer performance and speaker placement (I need speaker stands!).  Considering that my speakers are currently standing on milk crates 6" off the floor on either side of the piano, I think speaker placement is a higher priority.  When I get to the point where those are OK, THEN I can start worrying a little more about the sounds that Pianoteq is generating.

But truth be told, I don't want to.  I am intimidated by all the analysis and complexity of the tweakable parameters at my fingertips.  Yes, it's powerful and flexible.

But I don't want that...I just want something that sounds and "feels" like a genuine well-made acoustic grand or upright.  If I had just two settings for both of those, I would be VERY VERY HAPPY.