I've had the good fortune to be using the Pro version of Pianoteq for several weeks.

For those that want to achieve a particular piano sound, or those that want a better sound than samples achieve, or those that want to be able to play in real time with the responsiveness of an acoustic without the glitches often associated with samples, this may be the solution.

The installed size on my HDD is 26.19 MB for the program plus 13 MB for add-ons (additional sounds - vibes, bells, historic pianos, clavichords, and harpsichords).

http://www.pianoteq.com/pianoteq3_pro

G

Glenn, may I ask if you know of the main differences between the Pianoteq and Pianoteq Pro? I had a brief look at the website, but was unable to find a comparison chart.

Cheers,
James
x

My experience produced a different result. I haven't auditioned the Pro version, but did audition V's 1-3. Based on that I'd say that for tone, a good software piano is superior.

By software piano you mean 'sampled' software piano? Just clarifying.

James:

They are very good at developing the software and provide excellent online support to individual questions, but the site doesn't really get into the differences - not much different than most software sites.

In PT Pro there are twenty-two parameters that affect the sound that can be adjusted for each individual note on the piano (two of these are "pickup symmetry" and "pickup distance" which apply only to the electric pianos like the Rhodes).

While most if not all of the same parameters can be adjusted in the standard version, they cannot be adjusted note by note across the entire 88 note range as they can in the Pro version.

For example, the strike point of the hammer on the string typically varies from about 1/9th of the string length to about 1/20th of the string length - which affects the spectrum of overtones.

Another adjustment is "quadratic effect"; [quote] "at hard strokes the non-linear level of string response increases, producing frequencies with twice the normal values". (I assume that this is from the lowest setting to the highest setting which varies from zero to 3.0). In the standard version, this can be adjusted over the entire keyboard but all notes are changed equally; in the Pro version, each of the 88 notes can be individually adjusted.

If you like honky-tonk piano, it's a simple matter of detuning the unisons (putting them out of tune). With the Pro version, one could keep the bass in tune and just change the treble if one so wished.

This version (IMO) is for the person that has the time and interest to customize their piano sound. It is a slow complex process, and I've started to get a grip on it during the beta testing, but haven't mastered it by any means.

The note by note adjustment has some considerable potential.

However, what I like best about PT is that when played (live), it is extremely responsive - instantly. No clicks or pops. And pedaling with my Roland (that transmits values of zero to 127), is the closest thing to the responsiveness of my former piano (a Yamaha G2, 5'-7" grand - it was sold because of space and sound limitations when we moved from a house to a condo).

Glenn

PS - the latest standard version is 3.05 (it was updated 5 August 09); the Pro version is 3.5. The numbers are going to be confusing in time I think.

Standard version has been updated to 3.5 too. 3.5 has an improved resonance model, and includes the ability to control the duplex resonance.

For those questioning... Pianoteq Pro's ability to modify each note was something I was missing in the standard version and something that is present in the Roland V-Piano. Using a Yamaha Audiogram for output, my response is 5 ms and the sound occurs at the exact same time as the on board sound on my DP. I've layered the sounds playing around but I usually play with just the Pianoteq output. I disagree with those saying the Pianoteq tone is not authentic... it's anything I want it to be... it just takes some tweaking, though not much. If Yamaha / Kawaii has any foresight, they'll license Pianoteq's technology to compete with Roland, or they will be left in the dust.

Yes.

Do you feel the same way about the V Piano?

It would be interesting to get your feedback (and that of others) on the latest version of Pianoteq under controlled circumstances and comparing to top of the line sample and acoustic instruments.

Thanks for pointing this out - I sold the Standard version short - it has some better features than 3.05 has (I'd better get my free update).

G

Hi, Glenn. As you probably can guess, I agree. This new version changes everything: an entirely new world of possibilities for recreating a piano has just opened up. Astonishing, what can be done.

Journey, Alden does the digital section for Acoustic and Digital Piano Buyer. You might want to PM him re this.

I suspect that it will take a while for the others to be "left in the dust" simply because they've been so successful for so long using "smoke and mirrors". By smoke and mirrors I mean that they are based on samples.

By definition, a sample is only part of the whole entity, thus piano samples (rompler or software samples) cannot adequately emulate the true piano sound. I've listened to enough DPs and sample demos to realize that much is lacking, particularly in the responsiveness to actually playing and in rendering an existing midi file.

This isn't to suggest that Roland's V Piano and Pianoteq have arrived at perfection - far from it - but the road to a more realistic piano sound and piano "feel" won't be via any sampling technique, but through physical modeling. An acoustic grand produces far too many nuances to record in a static sample. That's the basic weakness of sampling - it is static, whereas music is dynamic.

I realize that what I say is going to annoy many that have invested time, money and reputation in samples, but I firmly believe that the future will not be with samples.

I strongly suspect that Roland's lead will be followed. It's price will come down as prices inevitably do once a technology is established.

On a side note, I've updated to Pianoteq 3.5 standard overnight and there is a subtle but real improvement. My daughter, who is taking lessons, noticed it immediately. There was a slight "wahwah" on the mid-to-upper range notes previously. That is gone and the resonance is more full. The most striking improvement is the voicing on the M3.

Outstanding!

/BTW I feel like the narrator in the new 3.5 tutorial is trying to seduce my wife

I agree about the M3 - it's easily my favourite piano. I use Recording with the mics rearranged: one on each side of the pianist's "head", one centred over the soundboard and one up higher and away from the indent curve of the case.

I spent considerable time in beta testing comparing pianos, and the M3 won hands down - on the other hand many prefer one of the C3's or the YC5.

I love the M3, too. One surprise for me has been two of the "historical" instruments--the Erard and the Bechstein. The Erard sounds more like a modern instrument now, with a few edits--increasing the impedance and cut-off a bit, etc. A smaller piano sound--in the direction of a Steinway B or a parlour grand. It's as though there are four modern pianos included.

Making similar edits to the Bechstein, along with reducing some of the elements that contribute to the source piano's somewhat metallic sound, I'm hearing a big, bass-emphasized sound.

My impression is that the soundboard is somehow reacting differently in these two pianos, but I'm not sure how. Possibly the Erard has a slightly louder aftersound\post-direct sound than the other pianos, while the Bechstein has a higher natural impedance--the wood sounds harder?

After the 3.5 Standard upgrade, I still think sampling will win a side-by-side comparison. I still feel like I have removed cotton wool from my ears when I play a good sampled piano after having just played Pianoteq.

However, I really like the improvements in 3.5, particularly in the C3 instrument. The gap is definitely closing!

Greg.

i got the standard version too,the sound is too thin for me.

Many thanks for the headsup on the Pianoteq updates! The only surprise is that they don't seem to have done an email notification....

I received an email notification, however, as usual, I first learnt of the update from the forum.

Greg.

Wow after reading all about Pianoteq I was ready to buy it, but I tried the demo yesterday instead (of latest version), tried all the presets and was really disappointed. This was the same day I played an acoustic upright, and went to a concert with Anton Kuerti playing a Steinway & Sons (great concert!). I know about all the techniques involved and how hard it is to model a piano, but this really doesn't sound like a real piano, it sounds like a keyboard. Synthogy ivory isn't perfect by any means, but it sounds like a piano with some unrealistic parts, not like a old keyboard with some realistic parts. I was disappointed, because especially the small size, the customization and the easy recording would be ideal for me!

update: by tweaking it yourself you can make it sound ALOT better, I think the presets are really weak.

update2: ok nevermind that other stuff, it just takes a lot of tweaking, but then it really does sound magical! I'm going to buy it anyway. The pedaling and sympathetic string resonance (along with some other annoyances) just make Ivory not that good of a piano practice tool. What this program can do is really amazing!

Just out of curiosity have you listened to the samples here and do you think any of them sound like pianos? If these sound good but your installation sounds poor then it's your installation or setup that is at fault. If you don't like the demos on the site I guess it's a matter of perception because I think they sound great. I get the same sound from my installation of Pianoteq and I'd say those are untweaked presets. I love Joshua Seth's recording of Griegs Piano Concerto in A minor - fourth one down - fabulous!

Yes I already edited my post, but it might be informative for people who get the same initial impression as me when they try it. I especially LOVE how you can change the hammer noise, damper noise and most of all the hardness of the dampers. Amazing program. I just hope people will make more good presets, because when I browse through the preset list its just really confusing.

The problem is that sampling is a stupid technology, that just happens to work in practice because computer storage is so darned cheap these days. Sampling is easy and cheap; mathematical modelling requires real brains and is difficult and expensive. As computer storage gets cheaper and cheaper, I predict that sampling will get more and more appealing, rather than less, simply for economic reasons.

Yes, the people who try Pianoteq and say it sounds unrealistic either have a poor setup or do not know how to use it properly. Some of the synthetic pianos are good, but not better. When used with a proper setup and tweaked properly, it smokes everything. I've invested in some synthetic pianos too and don't have any incentive to pump Pianoteq but after a day of messing with it I was sold 100% and now it's all I use.

I tried it, and my experience was quite different.

I agree that setup is part of the problem. I was running Windows XP, connected to a Clav via USB. Latency and dropouts were a problem (reduced with ASIO but not eliminated). That might have been solved by getting the right setup (better computer).

But the sound was another story. I didn't like the sound. In some ways it was richer than the Clav's native sampling, but Pianoteq (v3) still sounded very synthetic. Mind you, I was using the same amplifier and speakers/headphones through with the Clav sounded quite good.

Pianoteq might be on the right track, but I don't think it has yet reached the desired destination.

Mac: I use PianoTeq with an M-Audio 2496 on an old desktop I had spare. Latency is under 5ms and no drop outs that I've noticed.

I did try a USB midi interface a while back and although the midi signals reached the desktop with very little latency, getting from desktop to speakers via the soundcard was another matter. The 2496 took care of that, it also removed all the background hiss/noise that became very obvious with the speakers at higher volume settings

There's some decent external interfaces you can get now that are probably cheaper than I paid for the 2496 a few years back. Then again, if you don't like the sound it's not worth looking into just yet, unless you use midi with samples that is.

Victor25: Care to share some of the presets? I'm still playing around with the sound of PianoTeq and quite happy with it, but there's always room for improvment so I wouldn't mind trying out your presets.

I like to use this one for headphone use

http://www.box.net/shared/5hvo88cgfy

Also for people who still have problems with pianoteq sound very synthetic, I always add a little more hammer noise, make the hammer's softer, increase the string length, little less damper duration, little more unison. Also you owe it to yourself to try out different microphone positions, it changes the whole sound very drastically. And also be sure to try it out on the stereophonic mode for an easy solution.

Gary001:

If you join the Pianoteq forum, you can share various setting with others, no cost. And don't ignore the M3 piano, some of us think it's the best of the bunch.


kevinb:

I wouldn't say sampling is a stupid technology - it just happens to be as old as Edison. Every recording of every performer is essentially done by sampling (well of course it samples everything, so that it becomes the whole).

This is the problem with samples for piano - they are only small parts of the overall sound. So no matter how large or fast our computers become,they can't possibly sample everything (or it would be a complete recording of an artist).

This is the inherent weakness of samples - they cannot render the connectivity between the keys played and the pedaling that is essential to a smooth performance. Try playing Beethoven's "Moonlight" without using the damper pedal.

This is what I consistently notice about demos - there are invariably sections of the piece that don't sound right - as though the pianist didn't know what he was doing and played the keys too hard/soft, or didn't pedal correctly.

Finally there is one area that samples simply cannot duplicate - sympathetic resonance. Mathematical modeling can do this.

Glenn NK

People who still get weird sound, please try out this preset I made:

http://www.box.net/shared/d7dny2zu0c

(this one is for speakers, not for headphones, and the velocity curve is made for my kawai dp, so you should change that so it matches your controller)