Currently, dynamics default value is 60 dB in most Pianoteq presets. But if you set it for example to 40 dB, then you get a stronger sound when playing softly, which can be quite pleasant also... Thus the question: what should be the default value? Suggestions and comments are welcome!
I think your defaults should be as close to a real piano as possible, whatever that might be. I tend to use lower values (30 or so), especially when playing with others, in order to stay audible in the mix (the change in timbre with velocity implies dynamics in that context). For solo, I use a higher level. I sometimes find higher levels difficult to control, but that's most likely a result of a light keyboard and unsteady technique.
My guess is that lower (40 dB) would be the wiser marketing choice, since it's probably easier for new users to get satisfying results.
thanks doug. The thing is that recording usually compresses a lot - radio or Cd standard dynamics are quite low, whereas live play involves a much higher dynamics. So the correct choice depends on the use of the pianoteq... Other comments are welcome!
I haven't experimented with this but always used the default setting. It worked fine for me whereas I haven't played with a band until now.
I would be careful with too much compression (as which messing with this parameter might be considered) since you can end up always playing at the same level. If it were optimised to compete in a rock band by default, I would find it annoying if I had to manually increase dynamics when I want to play Mozart. The gauge should always be the "real thing" (as doug said) and not marketing, beginner's hassle or special cases like light keyboards or "them or me" band battles.
And whosoever wants to blast the guitar player away can still crank up that slider to 0 dB
On a side note, PT does not come with a default "cut thru the mix" EQ setting (à la Roland) but with a quite mid-ish substantial tonal character, and it's up to the user to tweak that in whatever direction. That's good!
@guillaume: Many thanks for this wonderful instrument. Great work and quite plainly a relief to anyone who has to deal with digital pianos!
P.S. As with the "use for all presets" option in the EQ section, it might be a possibility to offer that for other parameters as well -- like dynamics, velocity curves etc.
For example, I have a Fatar/Studiologic (not the best keyboard, but anyway...) which is a bit "fast". Now, with every preset, I have to select the appropriate vel curve. The solution is to create a dedicated setting for each PT preset, including the "tweaked" curve, in my AU host. But then, when I play live on my Yamaha P-80, I don't need that curve since the dynamics are much better there. If I could choose a global velocity curve (like a global EQ), I could use the same setting at home and on stage.
The question is how to incorporate things like these into the interface without sacrificing the relative simplicity we have now. Maybe a second, normally hidden, layer in the interface in which certain global settings are done (like a master dynamic range), and independently, on the front layer, individual settings for each preset. After all, there are cases when we want less dynamics or extreme EQing (like a bangin' twangin' R'n'R piano), but just for ONE fxp setting.
P.S. As with the "use for all presets" option in the EQ section, it might be a possibility to offer that for other parameters as well -- like dynamics, velocity curves etc.
There is one for velocity (right-click), along with some preset velocity curves. I'd like that for reverb (my preference is off), temperament, diapson and some of the items under the "options" menu.
In passing, thanks Guillaume, for setting things up for the MIDI values to pop up onscreen when you adjust them from a controller--very nice. The drag-and-drop for FXPs is also very useful.
dkpianist.de wrote:P.S. As with the "use for all presets" option in the EQ section, it might be a possibility to offer that for other parameters as well -- like dynamics, velocity curves etc.
There is one for velocity (right-click), along with some preset velocity curves.
Oops -- I somehow overlooked that these curves can be applied to all presets! Or that is new in v2.1. Anyway -- one problem solved...
That's new in 2.1.
The Pianoteq team has been very very good at listening, and keeping track of and implementing their users' requests. I'm very happy with everything about this product and especially with the skill and attitude of its creators and explainers.
I can only support that. I haven't followed user's suggestions here (how long has the forum been online?), but you can tell from the progress in 2.0 and 2.1 that they are actually working quite hard. I feel we get massive "bang for the bucks"
More than that, I'd like to say that this is one very stable and solid-feeling plugin. With PT on its own, I would never fear a crash in a live situation (Apple Logic has let me down with this before ). Unfortunately, I sometimes need layered sounds (p+strings), so I would need an AU host. But I digress...
There is one basic wish remaining, concerning dynamics: Someone put it another way in another thread -- a fff still feels distinctly more aggressive and majestic on a real grand. I cannot exactly nail it down with one word; it's more "bang", more "hammer", more "wood", more "ring" (especially with dampers open). PT would still stay a bit on the "decent" side in this respect.
This has partially to do with the restriction in MIDI keyboard controllers: Once 128 is reached, there is nothing more to achieve by pounding more. On a real piano, you feel there is no upward limit until the string breaks (I've seen that more than once in pianos at the conservatory but have never been able to do that myself; well I guess that means I'm a sissy ).
A very massive tremolo on a real piano can produce something that may be mathematically elusive; I think the person mentioned above also suggested chaos theory in this respect. I am no expert on this; with my limited technical vocabulary, I would refer to it as a kind of "distortion". Maybe that idea is not too far from chaos theory.
Otherwise, I am already very happy with this great (yet light) piece of software.
there are several things that you can try: increasing hammer hardness at forte (third slider in the voicing section), pushing dynamic to 100dB, or change the velocity curve. Of course you are right with the 128 velocities limitation which does not exist on an acoutsic piano. We once were joking about if we should let sometimes the strings break at velocity 127 - another funny idea was to let the piano get slowly out of tune, especially when playing forte...
Guillaume, thanks for your answer. I enjoyed your internal jokes
*On a sidenote: Not really a piano slowly going out of tune, but VERY subtle random unison variations would certainly contribute to realism. This has been said before, and it is only logical to think about this (see below).*
Concerning fff, I am not sure if your suggestions can do the trick. I have tried these things of course, but there is a point when the sound gets too artificial when you increase the hammer hardness yet further.
Listening suggestion: Keith Jarret, Köln Concert. Part I towards the end, Part II from 7:30 (right in the middle of it). There is a "ringing", feedback-like quality to the sound that seems more than the sum of its parts (and probably not easy to express in a math equation). I haven't yet succeeded to reproduce that. By increasing the hammer hardness beyond reason, one thing that happens is that the sound gets somehow thinner, less physical. Not so in a real piano.
How about trying a kind of (subtle of course) phase distortion or waveshaper on a per-note-basis (for the really hard strokes)? That is one thing that greatly helps with drum sounds. Just a bit of it, and the whole thing really bangs! One can try this kind of thing with Logic's sculpture, and while this beast is very hard to control, it sometimes goes in that direction.
Maybe it would also be interesting to take into consideration more noises from the piano -- not just the obvious hammer noise, but also the pounding on the keybed or the amplification of the hammer noise by means of cabinet resonance. Maybe you have already done that, but also maybe it was not quite enough.
There is a funny paradoxon: In instrument design, one focus is, logically, to get as much *sound* (from the strings/air column) as possible, reducing unwanted noises (hammer, action etc. in the case of the piano), and in digital pianos, we look for those noises as factors too bring more life into an otherwise dead clean emulation.
One prominent example is the sympathetic resonance. I think this was not really intended from the start but more of a by-product of incorporating several strings into one casing. Now, after 300 years, we are loving it and could not do without it. Except maybe Glenn Gould who supposedly hated most everything about playing, including the audience Did he use the pedal(s)? I bet very seldom.
Here's a pic that looks as if he was at least tempted to pedal (legs crossed of course, or it wouldn't be him):
http://www.perfectpitchpeople.com/gould.gif
But this shows quite an adolescent Gould; maybe he got over this nonsense later
The real problem with the controller is maybe not so much that there's but 127 (although a finer resolution would certainly be desirable) but that in most controllers the 127 ceiling is reached to early. Maybe there are some that are virtually impossible to push to 127, but on those that I know, "the "hard" setting does not set the stake higher but simply activates another (exponential) curve. The headroom stays the same.
Generally, I would say "headroom" is the basic field to explore in future PTQ development (and this applies to every modeled instrument, as well as to MIDI controllers). The soft notes are already done brilliantly (and they are maybe the factor I love most about it). I am looking forward to future developments and upgrades. For which I shall be happy to pay
Hi dkpianist.de
I had imagined a future digital piano, mathematical modelled like Pianoteq, or Pianoteq with a own piano controller and speakers, that would have a exclusive speaker for noise sounds.
The noise usually is not heard from distance, audience point of view, but by the player. To allow realistic noise sounds, a low power speaker would be used just for noises, while the main piano sound by poweful speakers.
But you said somehing I found interesting to think: "...the amplification of the hammer noise by means of cabinet resonance."
In this case, when there are amplification of noise sounds by cabinet resonance, despite I don't understand it well, depending of how much amplification and what fraction of th noise get it, the sound of the noises could also have some few percentage directed to the main speakers (refering my idea of a exclusive speaker to noises).
Maybe the trebble keys with loud wood noise, of some real piano brands, are more prone to get cabinet resonance.
In a future version with more sound channels, and not only stereo, maybe would be fine allow a channel for most of the noises. This way users could test variable power speaker for noise.
Ror what you sugest I guess that modelled noise would be the solution.
Philippe said that keep the sampled noise due implications of CPU power could create if Pianoteq adopted modelled noise. But a simple button to switch from modelled noise to sampled noise, would be a solution.
Here we are talking about some technical details that sampled piano developers could not even dream about.
I ask myself if Pianoteq team ever imagined that users would go so far by requests, based in the potential of this technology, as we a doing here.
