Heya Jake, thought provoking - thanks!
Jake Johnson wrote:not sure that the differences that Transgressor creates exist in a real piano
I'll try bust apart where my thoughts were. Yep certainly, that points out that plugins can do things which may be "not real piano" I always hope our thoughts lead to inspiration for further invention for Pianoteq.
In a way the tool seems to give a nice insight into what modelling might be attacked and how ideas from the tool (production really, not new but new in a single tool perhaps) could lead to mathematical constructs describing the initial event, which could theoretically cause extra clarity in that part of the key strike (as it stands though it's currently tremendous nonetheless! not to suggest noticeable lack or anything to be certain). The forensics on the initial impact are particularly good IMO. But
The transient from hammers striking while playing is modelled in Pianoteq so well thus far and includes (tangential) transient info which is alterable in several ways in Pianoteq. For example, we know we can alter hammer hardness (for piano, mezzo, forte which can sharpen or blunt the attack - and we get 3 layers of overlapping transient signal handling which follows our velocity this way unless I'm mistaken but it seems extremely good - like it sets a logical curve rather than being didactic about exactly only 3 hard-layered variables) and increase hammer noise but in terms of altering more details in this space, I've no doubt Modartt will over time have even more tools for us, which act on more aspects of these same things (and even some extra attack shaping on transients maybe as result of a quite separate set of items inside Pianoteq.) but perhaps as these user super-abilities appear in the Ptq interface they will be most likely 'from ground up' inside the model and modeled as per each real piano and preset, rather than via a post production tool which can only shape an overall signal, not component parts therein.
Kind of what I like most about Pianoteq - it can be produced to within an inch of its life just with internal tools - but you can always return to rational defaults and be reminded just how into over-production territory we've strayed at times (nothing wrong with some hard working studio production techniques to pull a sound) - just putting this in, because I'm kind of saying that, without extraneous studio techniques, Pianoteq is sounding more and more real (transients too) - so I guess there are two different things in play "production values of the tools" we like to produce with and "realism baked into Pianoteq" from which we begin to operate upon in our production chains.
In playing, you don't necessarily want to experience exactly the same identical transient response or handling routine with every individual key strike, soft through to hard (esp. if performance has wide dynamic range - definitely, some modern production might dictate absolutely the opposite, compressed repetitive etc. - a lot of people experience that, before they experience a real piano).
One obvious good example of why a transient might want to be (almost) randomly different per key strike, is apparent in bass strings, once already vibrating, a second softer key strike will give a different (maybe fuzzy) transient with scattered overtones sometimes giving a metallic ping rather than a knocking transient with less of the vibration reaching down to the wood (esp. if it glances lightly off a string as its vibration colludes - either way, if the extant string vib is traveling up or down, the hammer can create just a touch different transient - in theory same applies to all strings within degrees of difference in overall effect, even minuscule can amount to 'something' in the confluence of elements in range, which adds up to affect 'the harp' as it relates to cabinet sound 'colour' etc.) - even in production, you may not want to 'kill' anything of this - which a tool in a mix chain might make disappear or on the flip-side, boost it even obnoxiously to gain something initially wanted such as a sharper bite (at cost of 'something' maybe considered more realistic). At the heart of production, is the notion of cutting and boosting elements for effect, not always in consideration of true values, to push a drama or restrain some emotional quotient etc.
I go further to considering the string and hammer modelling have bounds which, although are not directly affecting each other, are still 'nested', such as how the vibrations of the metal frame hangs over the soundboard - the physical movements (like string vibration) here are tiny as it relates to transient as consequence of action of the hammers (but part of the real system of this big metal thing bounded in space inside an acoustic environ, while hammers tap the strings floating within causing all the forces to shape final sounds in various directions etc.). When you tap a bridge on a guitar you hear a transient thump through the whole body and feel the force vibrate to the neck etc. So on piano, even if extremely short! soft through to violent, each key strike's transient has way more detailed info inherent than simply an envelope shape on the front end (and tail - zooming right in of course) which is in some ways at least, as destructive as it may be additive to a signal.
I guess in the end, I love production tools but I think we always can backward-engineer what's going on for us who apply these tools, then try work out what might be useful as an addition to the originating signal (Pianoteq in this case) in terms of enhancing something in the model which users are attempting to enhance themselves.
Hope that kind of displays the thinking I really do like the tool! - it's certainly the best transient shaper I've seen yet! (that handling of front and back of signal with envelope is something right up my street).
Pianoteq Studio Bundle (Pro plus all instruments) - Kawai MP11 digital piano - Yamaha HS8 monitors
