Feature request: Hammer strike position

True...true... next thing would be a 672 page manual just for the Interface options, and probably a PTQ IML (Instrument Modelling Language) reference manual with over 1000 pages (available only in pdf) for the semi pro users. Then, why would we want to play when we can spend a very nice time learning the basics of IML and getting familiar with the 134 sliders and multioption buttons in the interface?

hehehehe!

Jake:

You make a good point.  The hammer position is very instrumental in determining the quality and timbre of the sound.

And because it can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, it would enable us to truly change pianos.

But I fear that for every hammer position, an entirely different algorithm would be required.

And then we'd need to vary the strike position across the 88 keys!!!

Gentlemen, let me introduce you to bloatware. LOL.

Glenn

But I'd rather have the ability to set this parameter, and be faced with more complexity, than to be unable to set this parameter.

I'm not sure it would require much of an addition to the interface: A single slider that would move all of the strings in a constant ratio to a new setting. A set of ratios to choose from, since there are probably specific ratios that are preferred by specific makers. And then sliders for each string to make small adjustments, similar to the note by note amplitude control in the current version. (This may sound as if it's growing too large, but it's a reasonable addition, considering what PianoTeq can do now, and is planned to do.)

I'm not sure it would require a new algorithm on each string, exactly. (I dimly suspect that that Phillipe and company did the math on this long, long ago.) The effect of the major variable (the proportion of the string on each side of the hammer strike) on each partial is apparently mostly predictable, though nonlinear, according to the lecture. The other major variables would be the string thickness and length, but this last would be automatically adjusted to, yes, since it's the proportion of the string between the agraffe and the hammer that controls the change in partial amplitude, and the slider would control this proportion, and not the exact position of the hammer strike? It would take me weeks to do the math. Modartt probably did it on a napkin over lunch. (That's meant as a compliment.)

And we can already create the basic effect of the change--the amplitude of the partials--in the current model, though it's now universal for any change we make. One way of seeing this is just as a way to change what we can already change, but string by string, and with control over more partials, and with the changes grouped in given ratios. In other words, I don't think this would add anything to the cpu or memory load. It would change the calculations, but not add additional calculations.

I promise I'll only ask for seven or eight more parameters.

Guys: This topic is getting stranger by the hour   It seems that PTQ might become a sort of a Frankenstein.... strange instruments... and even stranger settings.
It´s like the end of Terminator 2... a black road ahead with vew few lights....
Im still liking the PTQ koto!

I thought that repetition effect was one of the things that was modeled even in PTQ 2?

As far as placement of the hammers goes, I understood that the reason this was usually around 1/7th string length was to avoid over-development of the 7th harmonic?  Although it would be a nice feature to have, I don't think much would be gained for the end-user in having it.  Placing each hammer individually is rather like being able to alter the tone of every single pipe in a rank of organ pipes: it misses the point that the builder (of an organ, piano etc) didn't intend to build "character" into the tone of different notes and in fact much was and is done to achieve the exact opposite.  How much of the "nobody's perfect" factor is enough and how much is too much?

Regarding the spectre of a 1000-page manual to describe all the functions of a future monster definition file, this is exactly the turn-off that awaits anyone wanting to produce a sample set for Hauptwerk.  Having learned it and done it (including complex MySQL macros) I would concur with the poster who recommended playing rather than tweaking!

If the choice is my "perfect" piano sound and learning 1 new sonata per quarter, versus "C3 player with a few tweaks" and learning 2 sonatas per quarter, I know what I'd choose.

Best//Neil

Repetition effect is available since the initial tests of pianoteq.

I still don't get why you're trying to use a piano like a synth..  sounds like you'd like analogue modular synths or max msp much more than trying to coerce a physmod piano to be mega modulatable.  You should check out pd, or Pure Data if you haven't already, I'm sure you'd like it.

I'd rather get features that go directly into making the model more real and tweakable as you would a plain piano first, and then head on into additional features.  I do like the idea of movable strike points.  It'll mean totally redesigning the piano though, because the acoustics completely changes.

My hope\guess\near certainty is that this ability is already well-within the scope of the instrument, since in its simplest form, it appears to be mainly a matter of "auto adjusting" the varying amplitudes of the partials according to the proportion of the string between the hammer strike point and the agraffe. In a way, a basic mod matrix sequence.

On the other hand, the exact curves of the varying amplitude changes given that ratio, and the exact degree to which the hammer position must or can change from string to string if the instrument is to have a unified sound, must get complex, particularly since everything will shift, probably non-linearly, with changes in velocity, unison detuning, and direct sound duration.

But again, PianoTeq is so far ahead of me that I'm almost sure that all of the math has already be done, though with many more parameters and considerations than I can imagine, and much greater economy and elegance.

The problem might be more a matter of simplifying it all so the user only sees the one slider that moves all of the hammers in a constant ratio (if a constant ratio is what's needed--that might not work), one slider for or list of "standard" or at least good-sounding relative ratios for the hammer positions across the strings (something like the list of tunings?) and the sliders\point adjusters for people willing or foolish enough to wade into manually changing the position of each hammer individually. Again, though, I'm far behind Modarrt. They're probably deciding on the color for the buttons while I'm sitting here imagining what they worked out two years ago...

Philippe, Niclas, and Julien: I considered sending this feature request, initially, as a private message. I'm not sure why I didn't--maybe I wasn't sure if it was reasonable, and wanted to know what others thought. Perhaps it isn't. In any case, the new version gives us so many possibilities and such good sound that it's probably selfish and self-indulgent of me to want more.