actually, on the pianoteq demo, i actually wish they would give you access to all the notes and make it for a limited time. there are so many upper register black keys disabled it is kinda hard to figure out what it sounds like.

The OP heard what he heard, and that's far more credible to me than what Roland marketing says. Sounds like the dampers lifting off the strings are unlikely to be modeled, if Roland can barely model the much lower-frequency tone of a struck string realistically.

So this is why Roland's claim of an entirely modeled instrument would need supporting evidence from their side, otherwise it's not very believable and reeks of marketing hyperbole...

Yes, and therefore I've always reverted to the built-in piano patch of the P-85 for recording. With TP/PT, the sound is more obviously synthy, and people would notice.

But to me software pianos are more of a skill-building tool to improve your playing. And the feel is more important for that than the sound. That said, I didn't notice that any particularly octave sounds much better or worse than any other in TP...



Bah, "Twinkle, twinkle, little star" and "Frère Jacques" have to have enough notes for everybody! Demanding more than that is madness.

Huh? Pianoteq can model "sounds like the dampers lifting off the strings" and Roland can't (with a hardware instrument that has four computers, three of which are dedicated to producing / processing the sound. I'm missing something in the reasoning here.

Lawrence

Unless I can see the source code for PT, it's just a black box, and who knows what its 30 or 40 MB on the HD actually contain? It's a bit too much just for user interface graphics methinks. Now if PT were, say, only 3 MB, then I would agree that it has to model everything, but given the disk space it uses, it could very well be using a sample for the dampers. The tech description on the PT site (http://www.pianoteq.com/pianoteq3_tech) is ambiguous enough -- it just mentions that PT features certain damper noises, but not how they are created.

When I search for Pianoteq and "no samples", I only find reviews that claim this is the case. However, so far I have not found anything equally definitive on the PT site that supports this claim this absolutely.

So, having no access to the source code, one simply has to listen carefully to the audio for signs of sampling, which is what the OP did in the case of the V-Piano. And I see no particular reason to question his analysis. I tend to trust a neutral party more than a company that understandably wants to sell its products.

Makes sense. Thanks for your explanations.

At the end of the day, what matters is the sound (and playability of that sound) that matters. I don't feel that either Pianoteq or V-Piano have arrived (yet) where they should be in terms of sound. The V-Piano certainly has in terms of playability, though.

It will be interesting to see where things go as this technology matures.

Lawrence

I think Pianoteq is also very "playable". There's a concert pianist over in the Pianoteq forums that also seems to be extremely impressed. (I'm not one by any means)

In terms of sound, what I want is the experience of sitting down AT the piano and playing, and right now, I feel that sampling is still the leader. (haven't tried the V-Piano yet, but from the demos, I'll be extremely surprised if it has the very high fidelity "definition" that sampling has, and which I want)

Greg.

I think the V-Piano has definition, but the definition feels slightly "off" -- if that explanation makes any sense.

In the digital world, nobody seems to have found the holy grail of perfect playability AND perfect sound, it's always a tradeoff between the two. (And given how bad some of the pianos in older Deutsche Grammophon recordings sound, I sometimes wonder whether the same could be true for acoustics.) For high-quality digital recordings, huge sample libraries like Garritan Steinway are still hard to beat.

Thought I'd throw in my 2 cents...

V-Piano is hunk of junk. That may sound harsh and unreasonable, but $6000 for digital piano that screws up basic string and pedal mechanics!?!?!?!? No thank you.

What I mean by "screws up basic string mechanics" is that the melody notes in the middle section of Rach's Prelude in B minor get cut off prematurely. This means that the polyphony is not implemented properly and/or they improperly executed the effect of repeating notes softly after playing them loudly, by having the soft strikes merely replace the loud ones.

What I mean by "screws up basic pedal mechanics" is that it does not pass my "test": http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthrea...html#Post702976 (hehe, my virgin post here on pianoworld! )

I'm no Pianoteq fanboy--I believe Pianoteq has a long way to go before truly eclipsing sampled pianos. But at least Pianoteq got the basics right. Now to be fair, Pianoteq does not merely cost $250. You need a good 88-key midi controller, a fast computer, and a descent interface. So a complete setup probably costs at the very least $2000. But considering you'd need a computer and an interface to record the V-Piano, THAT pile of epic fail really costs upwards of $7000.

Yes, when I referred to "sampling", this is the kind of thing I was thinking of. I have a few large software pianos and they're very impressive. (I don't have any of the *very* large ones that consume tens of gigabytes yet)

Greg.

If there is a bug related to the note-stealing algorithm, maybe they could fix that in a software update. What they cannot fix is the ugly design, the terrible button layout, and lame user interface (without the PC plugged in).

If they had really wanted to create the 21st-century DP, they could have given this a large, high-resolution, letter-sized screen, and the ability to download sheet music from the equivalent of the iTunes Store. Then, as you play, the piano would analyze your playing, figure out where you are on the page, and turn to the next page at the right moment. Maybe it could mark on the page notes you've missed or played wrong, etc.

Since the sound of the V-Piano is not everyone's cup of tea, it would have needed a breakthrough feature or two to make it sexy. Unfortunately, Roland seems to have been unable to come up with one...

allright, sports fans, so what would you pay for a new action that plays really well, and has a built in sound that beats the built-in sounds of others..even if it doesn't pass the sniff test for the piano illuminati on this blog. (i betcha if i recorded it my mom wouldn't figure out the string mechanics were screwed up, and neither would most of the dopes who would be willing to listen to me)..... jscomposer i'm just funning with you, you are absolutely correct to point out any shortcuts roland took with this ultra expensive product. obviously very serious people would be the only ones to look at this iteration of the vpiano, and you would have thought they would be ultra careful not to disappoint. but you know, i can just see the pressure building in a corporation like Roland to stop screwing around with it (10 years?)and get it out the door. so, at what price are we willing to overlook its shortcomings? I plan to go back over to guitar center this weekend and play it again, and see if all the nuclear fallout from the posts i've been reading "affects" what i hear. i'd like to think i'm more of a grownup than that, but we all have our onboard insecurities...

Martin, there is a little known training feature in the new v-piano. you feed it a midi file of a tune via USB, and then you play it. when you hit wrong notes it emits a current through a cable attached to a body part chosen by your instructor. very effective and creates zen-type focus.

What's terrible about this discussion is that no one actually owns the VPiano, so we're left talking about our impressions of the sound from listening in music stores.

Someone needs to buy it and then be able to post recordings and videos. Or everyone here could chip in to let me purchase it, purely in the interest of our mutual desire to explore what it can do. I'd be willing to make the sacrifice of having to test it.

Well, if you can't afford a piano teacher to hit you on the hand with a ruler, it's at least the second-best option...

But really, given all the bitching about the problems with sheet music in the other foums, one would think this would give somebody a hint there's a business opportunity there. And I don't mean that strange thing where you turn the sheet music with yet another pedal. I know that device exists...



If it sounds terrible over headphones in the store, I don't imagine it will magically sound any better over speakers in your living room...

jake- i wonder if anybody actually has bought one. wouldn't that be a hoot if nobody, even the pros, has stepped up to the plate and ponied up for one.. unless they get paid to promote it.... the delorean of DP's..(although those were pretty cool for awhile)

maybe somebody reputable should start a new thread "Has anyone bought a V-Piano... Please Report!

Well, if you search on "goldenpiggy" you will get the impressions of someone who actually owns the V-Piano. He has posted here, I believe, as well as part of the large thread at Harmony Central Forum.

Thanks for pointing that out Melodialworks.... i went searching for it and wound up in the Rolandclan website. read an interesting thread from a fellow who just got one (not goldenpiggy). he seems to really love it, but he said something very critical- at least to me. he said it didn't sound like either a digital or an acoustic piano, but a unique instrument. now THAT really bugs me, because once the love of newness wears off, you had better be left with something that passes for an authentic piano, particularly if your goal is to record, as mine is. i know for a fact it is a blast to play, and that it would get me to sit down and practice/play, which is good. but it has to sound like a piano- good enough to fool people on recordings. if it doesn't do that, it clearly means the technology isn't there yet- at least not for that price. i started using my Garritan Steinway sample program again, tweaked it differently, and have found that i am enjoying it. i will probably buy the Pianoteq software, because i believe in what they are doing and i learn alot reading posts from their community. i think i will take a breather on the roland vpiano idea for awhile...unless i hear user demos being posted somewhere that sound convincing to me- that...to me... is the test. regarding pianoteq, yesterday i listened to the demos of the latest sample program- Steinberg's the Grand 3 - and i was underwhelmed- i only liked the Steinway sample, and it wasn't any great leap forward. when i finished listening to it, i immediately went over to pianoteq's site and listened to a demo by Joshua Seth- who posts on this site i believe. now he is a great player, but i also appreciated how alive the piano sounded relative to steinberg's sample. i am still not a complete buyer of the pianoteq piano sound, it may be my brain screaming at me "remember, this is a fake piano"... but i really appreciated the way he brought it to life...

I see Pianoteq now has a section for bells and carillons on their demo page. Finally a good application for the metallic Pianoteq timbre!

I listened to Goldenpiggy's demo, and I hated it. In parts it sounded very good, but in other parts it sounded dreadful, IMHO.
Honestly - I do not even feel like going and trying it, other than for the keyboard action.

Greg.

Greg- i can't find the demo. what did you notice negatively?

The demo is here: http://sites.google.com/site/goldenpiggy227site/Home/roland-v-piano

The referring forum posting:
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showpost.php?p=34260809&postcount=225

I notice a very synthetic, electronic sound in some places. To be fair, it appears that he had reverb completely disabled, and I *suppose* that this might result in an unnaturally dry sound.

Greg.

On a more positive note(!), has anyone actually tried the "cross resonance" adjustmnet yet? In the Roland demo clip, this sounds really good.

Greg.

i went back over to GC today, which was a mistake because the place is an asylum on the weekend. so i only played the vpiano for a few minutes. i think they have it "voiced" pretty aggressively regarding the hammer settings. i backed them down substantially, "softening" the hammers, particularly on the vintage 1 and 2, and it does give you a very different sound, and to my ears, nicer sound. takes a lot of the metal out...play the mckinley video demo, he does the same thing while plahying, it gives you a good indication of how much you can alter the "bite"...it also responds nicely to adding resonance, as Greg asked above. without a quieter environment i coudn't much tell anything about overtones. i do find it interesting as to how it supposedly "adjusts" to your playing. you can imagine the piano sitting in the showroom gets a wide variety of styles banging on it. i do notice a different feel to it the first few minutes, and then it seems more "responsive", which could be more me responding to it than vice versa... but i wonder if they have it programmed to adjust its velocity curve depending on the heavy or light touch of the individual player.

Yes, I'd like to know more about that self-adjusting feature. It worries me a bit. I'd rather learn the pianos's response, and adapt to it, thankyou very much. ;^)

The East West Quantum Leap library has a very interesting feature - it has the ability to detect legato playing, and then (I think) select the most appropriate samples for legato, or at least do something to make it more legato. This *does* make sense to me, because most of us will be using keyboards that do not send continuous data for the key position, or for that matter, even just plain release velocity. If the V-Piano is doing this kind of thing, then that's cool.

Greg.

I just did jscomposer's test for "screws up basic pedal mechanics" on a V-Piano in a store yesterday, and the V-Piano did the correct thing (note kept playing).

Also, could you please provide a midi + audio files of that supposedly other flaw ("screws up basic string mechanics"), so that we can all make up our minds about it independently?

Martin: Forgive me for being late to the party, but I saw your July post:I can't know what thinking Roland applied to the design, but I have to agree ... the box looks like, well ... a box. No style, just folded sheet metal (or is it plastic?).

And, yes, the user interface looks like a horror. I haven't tried one. I've only seen the online videos. But from the paucity of controls, it's clear that this is not a good design.

Maybe the development costs were high, and they had to trim the "extras" in order to keep the price down. (It's still pretty high anyway. But wouldn't it be even higher if the UI were richer?)

Still, this is just V Piano number 1. Can we expect a model 2 someday soon? I hope that the falling cost of technology (and the payoff of the V's initial development costs) might lead to a better next-generation V.

If so, maybe the V's technology will roll down to the mainstream DPs? I couldn't possibly afford the current V. But if modeling goes mainstream, maybe my next DP will be a Roland "V junior" for perhaps $2000? I can hope!

[quote=MacMacMac.. What they cannot fix is the ugly design, the terrible button layout, and lame user interface (without the PC plugged in).

If they had really wanted to create the 21st-century DP, they could have given this a large, high-resolution, letter-sized screen, and the ability to download sheet music from the equivalent of the iTunes Store. [/quote]

The overall "look" is a matter of opinion. I'm sure some people like it.

As for the lack of a large screen and many buttons. I think a designer has to walk a line of balance. It's not just the cost. Many pianists simply do NOT want a large screen and many blinking LEDs. It's distracting. But you can fix all those things. Simply bay a small notebook computer, maybe the black Macbook and leave it on the piano. Now you have the ability to move MIDI files over a network, print out printed sheet music of what you just played (mistakes left in or not) record to a multitrack records and have a much nicer parameter editor. Then when ever you like you can close the lid on the computer. So I'd prefer a minimalist amount of controls on the DP and let the rest be done on a computer. The computer aalso has the advantage that it can be upgraded. Whatever is built into the DP, you are stuck with fr many years.

I've been a somewhat close follower of the Roland modeling technology since buying a set of V-drums 8 or 9 years ago. If the development cycle is anything similar to the drums, in about two years you can expect some kind of expansion board upgrade for the V-piano along with a newer model with fewer features but some new sounds and editing points at a lower price point. In about 4-5 years your can expect a full redesign with a version 2 model and more leveraging of the technology into lower price point units. The main flagship model will remain somewhat spendy.

Kurt