Hi All,

Have downloaded the trial version of Pianoteq (Play) and it seems to be quite good... Before I shell out €99 however, I thought it might be worth checking there's not something else out there that I should consider.

All I'm really after is a decent piano sound...

I'm a piano beginner (just starting grade 3) so don't think I need anything more than a fairly simple plug-in-and-play, but it does seem that something like Pianoteq offers a degree tone, and feel, that improves on my Kawai CL-36, and that will help me as a I learn... Do you more experienced types agree with that?

Is there anything out there that does a similar/better job? I gather there are two (more?) schools here - modelling and sampling... Don't have an opinion either way about these - Pros? Cons?

Thanks in advance.

What did you think about the sound of Pianoteq?

I find it rather unconvincing - cold, eerie, somewhat metallic. Like a synthesised piano (which it is I suppose). But I think Pianoteq have got the behaviours right and that could make it a very satisfying thing to play if your priority is not the best accuracy in the sonic replication of a real grand piano - for this you need sampling I'm afraid.

The future must be with modelling but the sonics aren't quite right yet in my opinion. For the time being compromise is necessary.

I'd be mildly surprised if you could improve on the built-in sound of your CL-36 for less than the $99 that PT costs. There are plenty of free sample players, but you'd still have to feed them with samples, and getting decent ones for little money is difficult.

I dispute that sampling offers better accuracy of replication in the general sense. It might be true for a single note, but (so far as I know) sampling systems don't deal well with sympathetic resonance, which is a substantial part of the piano sound.

Hi

I’m just a novice but like you I have a Kawai CL36 and find that Pianoteq Play works very well with it. I also own a number of sampled pianos (Synthogy Ivory II Italian Grand, Galaxy Vintage D and Garritan Authorized Steinway Basic). Of the latter I like the Vintage D the best in terms of authenticity, richness and playability but Pianoteq is far superior to it and the others in terms of key and pedal response. To my mind Pianoteq’s other main virtues are the elimination of the room colouration inherent in sampled instruments and accurate sustain characteristics at lower and middling velocities.

Until recently I didn’t care much for Pianoteq’s tone but I’ve found a satisfactory solution by splitting the keyboard range in order to take advantage of certain models’ strengths (I use Reaper as a VST host and midi note filter, and a combination of Pianoteq’s C3, M3 and Pleyel models for the bass, mid and treble regions respectively).

Whatever Pianoteq model you use, I’ve found that it’s important to set volume at a reasonable level: if Pianoteq sounds plasticky or synthy and doesn’t seem to have the tonal and dynamic range of an acoustic piano the level is probably too low). However, I agree that it’s not quite there in terms of authenticity as yet.

Sampletekk offer relatively inexpensive sample libraries, however I believe you will also need Kontakt in order to use them fully.

There's also Alicia's Keys, which I believe is rather competitively priced.

Cheers,
James
x

I'll second what EssBrace said I love the playability of Pianoteq but hate its sonic quality and to me personally that's a deal breaker. I would rather go for Ivory Italian Grand II despite being twice the price.

I second CyberGene.

I have owned Pianoteq for about eighteen months, and in that time have played it about half-a-dozen times. Every time I hook up to it, the session lasts about five minutes before I have to quit due to its strange and sterile sound. For some reason the sound just grates on me. Like others, I admire its playability, but for me that's just not enough. I haven't spent any time trying to see if layering it with a hardware sound will improve it, but I suppose there might be some potential there.

That said, I'm eagerly awaiting the nest major revision, as I really think that modeling represents the way forward for DPs.

Although I haven't played the V-piano, I like its sound more than that from Pianoteq by listening to the mp3 demos. Strangely (or logically) both posses that unrealistically metallic ringing/buzz after the initial attack but that's much less apparent on the V-piano demos. Of course one is $99 and the other is $4999. Anyway, I am deeply convinced in the piano modelling approach and I also believe the next versions of Pianoteq and V-Piano will rock!

Regarding Pianoteq ... agreed. I like Ivory much better.
Sampling sound beats modeling by a large margin.

Pianoteq is awesome, nothing come even close like Truepiano, Ivory etc. I have evaluated them all. Since I bought pianoteq I love it more and more every day. I play it through RD700GX.

People are so polarized when talking about Pianoteq. Some are loving it and other can't stand playing it for more than 5 minutes

Wow... Thanks everybody... Once again though it does seem to come down to our old friend "personal preference".

I guess I should at least try some of these sampling systems... Maybe I can find a retailer where I can try some out... Or maybe not (one big advantage of Pianoteq is that I can download the trial and see what it's like with my own setup)...

Is Pianoteq the only modelling system - all the others mentioned are sample based...?

of course not - try Truepiano (40 days demo available), old free CV piano by tascam all are modeled.

Sampled piano maybe are warmer but the dynamics suck, you can hear looping etc etc. They were better up to sometime ago.
Now with new Pianoteq no contest for me. Way more expressive.

The only other pure modelled piano is the Roland V-Piano which is not a software but rather a complete hardware solution in a stage piano form-factor.

I think TruePianos are supposedly a hybrid between modelling and samples.

I completely agree about the disappointing lack of playable demos of the sample based pianos. There are "ways" if you know what I mean. Not that I am a proponent of software piracy but sometimes there's no other way. I was about to purchase Galaxy Vintage D at one moment but there was no demo available. So, I found a "way" and I am glad I did because I realized the re-pedalling model they implemented was far from being useful and realistic and that's critical for me. Someone would call me exacting but re-pedalling and half-pedalling is critical for me. From the sample-based pianos it is only Ivory and Galaxy which support both features. And it is only Ivory which is realistic. Strangely, all the simple short-sampled digital pianos support that perfectly.

This might apply to the native sounds in digital pianos ...
But it hardly applies to the PC-based samplers. The samplers have no noticeable looping and WAY more dynamics, compared to the internal tone generators.

I use Ivory regularly. (I'm also trying Galaxy ... I'm having tech problems with it right now, so I don't yet have an opinion.)

Ivory sounds like a piano. I like both the Steinway and the Bosie (but not so much the Yamaha).

I've also tried Pianoteq and True Pianos (demos of both). I think True Pianos must have more than one piano available, but the only one provided in the demo was of poor quality.

The Pianoteq demo sounded better than True Pianos, but was still very dead and synthetic sounding.

I think they have a long way to go before claiming that modeling beats sampling. (Note: I've not yet had any chance to try the Vpiano.)

I would definitely suggest Galaxy Vintage D. It's only $145 and the sound quality is exceptionally better than PianoTeq and almost all other software pianos. I've tried a bunch and it's by far my favorite, mainly because it is so expressive, responsive, and playable. Half pedaling and key-off samples are very well implemented. Nice long, non-looped, warm, nuanced, 24-bit samples. 13 velocity layers. You can practically feel the soundboard resonating. Quite easy on the hardware too. Very difficult to tell that you are not playing a real, high end piano (assuming you have very nice speakers or headphones). Vintage D has basically spoiled me for all other pianos, acoustic and digital.

Galaxy, Ivory, EW pianos, Garritan. All great, I'm sure, but much more pricey than just Vintage D, which does not require the purchase of other software to use it, by the way. And Ivory and EW pianos require an extra $50 or something for an iLok.

I would avoid Native instruments, Ivory 1.x, and other earlier (or budget) software pianos. Anything that does not implement half pedaling well will end up being less playable, in my experience.

If you want something more modeled, try truepianos. It sounds better than pianoteq. Not as tweakable, but much more listenable in my opinion.

don't agree, you probably have tried older version of pianoteq which was not great. The newest is a real difference.

How many dynamic levels you have in your ivory if I may ask?

p.s.
BTWI agree, Truepiano is much worse then new pianoteq, completely without character.

The Pianoteq trial was v3.6.7. Yes, it's a big improvement over the first one I tried way back ... version 2. I was expecting the new one to sound more piano-ish. But it's barely better (in some respects) than my Clavinova ... Pianoteq has more transparency. And it's worse in others ... sounds less like a piano.

True Pianos was long ago, more than a year ... I don't remember the version number.

Ivory is v1.5. I usually play with the 10-level samples. I mostly use the Bosie, but the Steinway is good, too.

so don't you think or feel 10 levels is not enough for expressive dynamic play? In pianoteq you have actually full spectrum 127 levels. huge difference.

In my search for the best alternative to my keyboard piano's built-in sounds, I listened today to Garritan's Authorized piano, Synthogy Ivory II, Galaxy Pianos & EastWest. To my ears all of them have special qualities, and outstanding sound compared with what's built-in to my DP. To my taste the Garritan in high resolution (professional version) and the Galaxy pianos would get a slight preference.

I do, however, find it surprising that none of them (as far as I can see??) have playable demos for download. To me paying $200 - $400 for something I have not been able to try out is, well, some money. Do one of you know if playable demos are available or do the companies refund the purchase price within e.g. 2 weeks should I decide to not keep the product?

BTW I've been playing Pianoteq for some hours today. Again, compared with what's inside my DP it is way beyond quality-wise. Especially in terms of velocity, the ability to nuance the intensity of the keys. Comparing it to some of the sampled pianos my ears nevertheless do miss out some textures, timbres, nuances - which I would prefer everything else being equal (if possible?)

Thanks for an interesting thread :-)

Jesper

One more note - in e.g. Ivory you have color/character given since it's sampled,
in Pianoteq you have to create it on your own. You're shaping the sound as in real instrument so don't blame the piano. BTW this is the reason why sampled instruments are selling much better because people are lazy despite of fact analog or virtual analog instruments are actually way more realistic and more flexible.

In terms of modelling V-Piano sounds better than Pianoteq in my opinion - quite a lot better, especially in the bass and treble where V-Piano is impressive.

For the time being Roland's Supernatural engine provides a workable compromise for many - a combination of a sampled basis with certain modelled elements "overlaid" to reduce undesirable characteristics such as looping and audible velocity switches. But the dynamics of Supernatural can't compare with V-Piano (V-Piano very superior). SN is a good compromise though...until the next big development. A decent sample library or hardware DP with very good native sound still provides the closest sonic presentation of acoustic piano. It might be a while before sampling loses this advantage. But the day will come, without doubt.

I am not sure it's a matter of laziness. There are many custom presets for Pianoteq to download, but I always find them synthetic, dull and boring. Personally I think there is something in the way the sound is created which makes it sound this way despite the numerous parameters.

P.S. I am still waiting to hear a Pianoteq preset that sounds exactly like Ivory Steinway, or Galaxy Vintage D, etc. If you're not lazy, could you make a sound that's a full replica of any of the mentioned? That was a rhetorical question. It's just not laziness of the people using it. Otherwise Pianoteq would have killed any other software piano since long ago.

I agree - there will be many things you cannot do with Pianoteq, many ways it cannot sound due to the limitations of the basic, underlying tone. Many people have said it is impossible to create that truly woody, warm piano tone with Pianoteq and I have yet to hear any tweak that successfully rebuts this view.

Yes, in my experience (playing the demo of the latest version) PianoTeq lets you tweak the sound an amazing amount, but never sounds good. It is definitely playable in the sense that it does have 127 timbres (not counting the effect pedals, etc have) and responds nicely, but that doesn't help if none of those timbres pleases, which is my experience.

TruePianos has a demo, but it's their least pleasing piano as well. There's a youtube video of someone comparing TruePianos and PianoTeq and TruePianos sound much better.

But neither of them compares with the new, high end sampled pianos.

By the way Vintage D has 13 levels I believe. It seems like I saw somewhere that Ivory II has up to 18. Based on my experience with Vintage D I don't think number of velocity layers is a limiting factor among software piano quality. Vintage D has a very LARGE range of tonal possibilities. The more important consideration is how well half-pedaling, key off, damper noise, reverb, etc. work. For inexpensive sampled pianos, it is often not well.

Remember that we are just talking about 13 or 18 possible timbres per note for a given setting, there are still 127 volumes at which those notes come out, just as there is in PianoTeq. And each one actually sounds like a piano.

Ivory II uses blending algorithms for velocity layers so in practice it should create a smooth gradation and a slightly different timbre for each velocity 1-127. Most modern digital pianos use blending as well.

Are you talking about dynamic levels or sampling levels?

Sure, 10 dynamic levels would be marginal or worse. But 10 sampling levels is, frankly, more than enough. To have 127 levels is beyond the means of the finest pianist, and not discernable to a listener.

Pianoteq has both since it's a modeled piano. I agree with you, MacMacMac, that 10 is more than enough sampling levels. With the blending, as mentioned a second ago, you wouldn't even be able to tell if you listened really closely and were trying hard to experiment and find the level transitions.

We should remember, for comparison, that most of our digital pianos probably have 3 or 4 sampled levels.

for me dynamic level were unsatisfactory on most digital pianos except V-Piano which
was very close to pianoteq actually in that regards as well as character. You can blend
10levels of sampling but it will never be the same as original sound at that level.

robart: Your first sentence speaks to dynamic levels. The second speaks to sampling levels. These are two different things. So I don't know exactly what you mean.

I'm saying that 10 levels of sampling meaning 10 levels of original velocity - the rest is better or worse digitally faked.

One thing to try is to build you own hybrid. Get Pianoteq and a sampled piano and load both of them at the same time. I figured it might sound like two pianos, but I don't think so. You can adjust the relative volumes and pan then over top of each other.

Also ALL virtual pianos need to be run through a good reverb, eq and likely a compressor too if you are using headphones. If you have good speakers then your room does the reverb for you. Without processing the sound can be harsh. But so is the raw feed off a microphone on a real acoustic grand if it is close mic'd.

I think the way to use a virtual piano is the same way you'd use the feed from a mic's acoustic.

I have tried this PianoTeq with a lot of hope, but unfortunately I disappointed. Even my Roland E-16 does it better when it comes to piano sound simulation.

wonder what type of ears have you used ...

Smart ass.

I use Pianoteq Pro exclusively, and the learning curve is steep and not easy. Five years on and I'm still experimenting.

Perhaps those with negative comments haven't used the latest version or haven't bothered to tweak the sound. Being able to change twenty-odd parameters on each of the 88 notes can add quite a bit of reality. The randomize feature is probably the most effective way to render the sound more natural - what piano really retains its "piano tuner" tuning for more than a few hours? (I don't recall a concert where the tuner didn't work on the piano at intermission).

Randomizing the parameters makes a huge difference as does changing the "spectrum profile" (in which the level of individual overtones can be adjusted.) The adjustable parameters are: Soundboard (impedance, cutoff frequency, Q factor), string length, sympathetic resonance, duplex scale, quadratic effect, hammer hardness (piano, mezzo, forte), hammer noise, hammer strike point, dynamics, tuning (temperament, unison width, octave stretching), dampers (noise, position and duration). "Dynamics" is interesting - it enables one to change the volume level between pianissimo and forte.

The Pianoteq sound has evolved, and it will continue to evolve. In the area of expressiveness and pianist control, there isn't much that can match it (other than another modeling program). My dual core CPU is seven years old, and keeps up easily - the installed program takes 24.81 MB on my HDD. That's in megabytes - less than a three minute wave file.

Glenn

Good points Chris. I think this is often missed.

Glenn

It is my understanding that Pianoteq Pro settings can be saved to an "fxp" file which can then be imported into any version of Pianoteq by other users. Has anybody yet come up with a convincing sounding fxp that accomplishes what Roland has accomplished with its Supernatural acoustic pianos (if so, please direct us to that fxp)? When Pianoteq held an fxp contest (http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?id=1952), why was the winning fxp a "bass banjo" preset? The bass banjo is not a piano; indeed, it was news to me that it was an instrument at all. I echo the sentiments of this guy: http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?id=1970

Not sure I agree with this. I use a sampled piano (Vintage D) with headphones exclusively. Sometimes I use it with reverb, sometimes not. Since it has a real sweet sound already (apparently not real closely miced), I typically leave the reverb off. When I tried this with PianoTeq, on the other hand...

ChrisA, can you comment on why compression is necessary or helpful? I see the feature but I've never used it and I'm not sure what the advantage would be to the headphone user?

Yes, an fxp can be created and used by others; I have developed a few for my own use.

I can't answer your second question for reasons I cannot go into.

If I recall correctly, the goal was to come with a non-piano sound that would demonstrate the versatility of Pianoteq. Pianoteq after all, models percussion string instruments, and with the multitude of adjustable parameters, the sound can be varied considerably. I have an fxp of "electric bass" that I have used in conjunction with a piano solo. It's not the greatest; I'm still working on it. Oddly version 1 or 2 of Pianoteq had a very good acoustic bass sound that was part of the "bag".

Pianoteq is a work in progress; but then, what isn't in the field of music?

Glenn

indeed, since I bought it 2 weeks ago, I have received already 1 update

+1 for ChrisA's hybrid suggestion. Use a host program like Reaper and load both the Pianoteq VST and a sample-based piano VST of your choice. I tried the Steinway BlueStone demo from SupremePianos as the sampled VST and had good results. Here's a link if you are interested:
http://www.supremepiano.com/

Then, when you press a note on your midi controller, it triggers the samples AND Pianoteq at the same time. With the host program Reaper, you can mix the volume amount of each program you are using. I find that 60% Pianoteq and 40% sampled VST does the trick nicely. That way, you have the expressiveness of Pianoteq and its beautiful modeled string and soundboard resonances first and foremost at your fingertips; and then underneath you have the 'woody', meaty, and crisp samples for added depth and 'weightiness'.

If you really must have a bright, clean sampled sound first and foremost, you could reverse the proportions and have maybe 70% clean samples on top with 30% resonances and string sounds of Pianoteq underneath to make the samples sound more lively and less sterile. Pianoteq's 128 levels of velocity and expressiveness might be a little more hidden in the mix though.

Something else to think about: I am also a piano tuner, and I can tell you from experience that when you stick ANY 2 different piano programs together, you will get out-of-tune unisons. This is because every sampled piano was tuned prior to its recording so that THAT particular piano would sound its best. Its pitch in Hertz will be slightly off with Pianoteq's mathematically calculated Equal Temperament and tuning. But the cool thing about using Pianoteq is that the Standard and Pro versions (maybe even Play version?) let you easily tune each individual note up or down with your mouse. Then just save your tuned piano as a Pianoteq preset.fxp file to call up each time for later use. Therefore, with this hybrid method, you might have to play 'piano tuner' and get the unisons to stop slowly waving in and out of phase. A non-pianist might not hear any difference, but if you make a recording or play gigs, you will need to devote some attention to this detail.

Hope this helps!
-Erich

Another factor in favour of PT, in my experience, is its low use of computer resources. I can run PT on my modest laptop computer which, together with an external USB soundbox and my modest keyboard makes a workable, portable piano with sound quality better way better than anything else I could afford.

In addition, PT offers the ability to create other instrument sounds with no additional software. This may not be important if all you're interested in is piano, but I find the harpsichord patches very useful and convincing.

Erich,

Pianoteq Play allows global pitch change (in hertz) but not individual note adjustment like the more expensive versions.

I've often tried layering Pianoteq and Galaxy Vintage D and it works quite well in the bass and treble registers but the midrange is not so good -- even after I've spent a fair bit of time matching individual notes in terms of their level and tuning (in this case using the trial version of Pianoteq Standard).

When using Pianoteq Play the tuning stretch in the lower and upper registers seems to match quite well after I raise Pianoteq globally to about A=441.5Hz (the Vintage D seems to be tuned to about A=442hz despite the default indicating A=440hz). My guess is that the unison width/detuning applied to this piano was fairly pronounced and is most apparent in the middle register? The effect is not an obvious tuning problem in terms of objectionable beating or a chorus-like detuning effect; it's more a sense that the sampled and synthesized notes aren't integrating as pleasingly as the slow rumbling basses or the short-lived trebles.

Woah! Seems I've open opened a can or worms here... Some people like modelling, others prefer sample based systems... Perhaps we could do a poll...

So, for the purpose described in the original post (simple piano, easy to use plug in and play, suitable for beginner - intermediate level pianist) this thread seems to suggest the following are worth considering...

Modelling:
Pianoteq
Trupiano

Sampling:
Synthogy Ivory II Italian Grand
Galaxy Vintage D
Garritan Authorized Steinway Basic


Which one would you recommend? Should this list include any others?

Let me know your views and I'll collate them all into some sort of league table of popularity

The thing that comes closest to these requirements is a low to mid-price stand-alone digital piano-

Cheapest - Casio PX or possibly Yamaha P95 (or something second-hand)
Mid-pirice - Yamaha P155, Roland FP-4F, Kawai MP6

One thing that is not being discussed here in detail is the connection between keys and the resulting tones - no plug-in or virtual piano will have quite the same immediacy. Not in my experience anyway. And don't underestimate the ball-ache of constantly having to wait for a bloody computer to fire up every time you want to grab a few minutes at the piano - it will get you down in the long-run.

Good luck,

Steve

pianoteq and vpiano are 100% digitally faked. some day that may be good enough to listen to. it's not now. i think they are useful tools for performance, but they don't sound right.

EDIT: now having said that, the Pleyel on Pianoteq is getting really close.... but if you listen to the demos on Ivory II i don't see how you can argue the two compete- from a LISTENER's perspective. I just installed Ivory II and i can't get over how great it sounds. But there is no question the native vpiano plays better.

Those are the options that are available that are both 1) cheapish 2) from the current generation. Though remember you have to add the price of an iLok to synthology, which makes it significantly more expensive.

I'd recommend Galaxy Vintage D. It's awesome. Garritan and Synthology are also excellent. TruePiano has its moments. PianoTeq is good if you like wet fingernails scratching down a chalkboard.

Bruce, I think you have summed up the current situation perfectly.

Steve

Steve my friend, i owe it all to you for crystallizing my thinking after your candid but objective trashing of my v-piano recordings!
(an ounce of truth is worth 50 lbs of BS...). i think deep down i was looking for someone to expose the naked emperor's wishful thinking.

Perhaps more useful would be to partake in the thread that's been "stickied" - DP Midi Playback Comparison.

Polls as to which software is used don't necessarily indicate which "sounds better". Rather, preferences have a strong tendency to correlate with which software people have payed for (there's an extremely strong connection between what we like and what we are invested in).

However the referenced thread has a basic weakness - every sample is identified, and our judgement can be affected by the same human tendency to prefer that which we're invested in.

A "blind test" would be much more useful:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the people involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or subconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results.

For example, when asking consumers to compare the tastes of different brands of a product, the identities of the product should be concealed – otherwise consumers will generally tend to prefer the brand they are familiar with.


The problem with this approach is immediately apparent - there is a lot of work involved - look at the effort put into "DPBSD Project" run by Dewster.

Samples have to be submitted to an unbiased arbiter, who would then post them with a name that wouldn't reveal the identity of the software; then we'd have to vote and comment as to what features of the sound we liked/disliked. Compiling the results can be a gargantuan task.

Dewster, we need your help.

Glenn

PS:
There are other problems; to be truly effective, a rendering by a software should be played in real time, live, by a pianist using the software. A midi file recorded with one software piano will not necessarily transcribe well onto a different software piano. This too has problems - everyone plays a given piece differently and this again can affect choices. There is no simple solution, but the most practical one is to use several standard midi files (as was done in the first thread noted).

Another possible issue: certain pianos are better for certain types of songs. This type of comparison typically involves one midi file and it's hard to pick a song that shows the strengths and weaknesses of each piano.

I was not talking about settings exclusively, the sound you create by playing one way or another like in real instrument.
In case of modeled pianos the controller makes a huge difference as well. Not just everybody who will sit at the Steinway grand piano will pull the great sound out of it same
goes with other instruments. Looks like most here expect digital pianos to sound good no matter how they play.

True.

I know of a beta test wherein there were a number of different types of music samples - about seven or eight as I recall. Some piano sounds were judged to be better suited to some music styles.

But of course, that was the reason that seven or eight different types of music were used.

Glenn

Glenn, i do agree with your postscript. the way a piano "sounds" when you are playing and how it "reacts" to your touch often influences the way you play it. there is no question the output can very often influence the input. There is always the risk rendering midi files produces lifeless reproductions. I think a good way to approach it is to- make a midi file; render several pianos to see which one sounds right/best for the piece; rerecord directly using the chosen source. does that make sense?

Absolutely. One is affected by the instrument one plays and must adapt or play to it.

I've often talked to a friend that is a piano pianist/technician - we agree that if one doesn't "play to the piano" then where is the musicianship?

Glenn

Thanks to those of you who've expressed some preferences...

Glen, I realise that people often prefer that which they've invested in, but it's clear from some of the other replies on here that there are at least some people who have tried a number of the options. As a newbie I was hoping to tap into some of that experience, I suspect there are others who visit this forum that would find this useful too.

To dismiss peoples opinions as partisan is surely to miss the point of a forum? In addition, I would argue that it makes a poll even more relevant. If a clear favourite emerges from a large sample then surely it must have something going for it?

Yes, I agree that "One is affected by the instrument one plays". That's a key reason for starting this thread - as my original post makes clear, I am asking for recommendations that will help me, a piano beginner, improve my playing, as well as my enjoyment.

With all due respect, I think your reference to, and the ongoing discussion about, the DPBSD Project is a bit 'off topic'. As you say yourself "to be truly effective, a rendering by a software should be played in real time, live, by a pianist" so it's not clear to me how it will help me make a decision about how to spend my £100 on some software?

Rick

Rick,

Check out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E_TSkkWxBs

and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7KesUNuZCM&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

I have not played these libraries but they sound outstanding to me and they are cheap (available through acousticsamples' website).

I really like this guy's style (Lance Herring). There are other YT videos of his worth watching too. Although in the short run this is not a dirt cheap option as you will perhaps need Kontact - but acousticsamples' website seems to indicate that they have a player you can download.

Cheers,

Steve

Maybe so -- but it's worth bearing in mind that there is a huge difference in price in this area. A poll that compared products irrespective of price would, perhaps, not be all that relevant to a person on a tight budget.

Is there? Well surely that's just the sort of useful information a thread like that could usefully tease out? My quick researches based on some of the recommendations already made wouldn't suggest that the price variation for the quite specific thing I have asked about is that great?

I have also mentioned a couple of times the sort of figure I'm thinking in terms of, so perhaps suggestions could be restricted to that sort of ballpark...

Let's simplify...

Basically I'm just trying to find out if it's worth spending money on software...

As I've said, I'm a beginner on the piano, I'm using a low-ish level DP (Kawai CL36). If you had €100 - €150 to spend on some software, what software would it be? Or wouldn't you bother?

Thanks everyone.

Synthogy Ivory II Italian Grand because (i) it is not buggy, (ii) it, along with the Ivory Steinway D, sounds the best of the Ivories (yes, I bought all of them), (iii) it responds very well for a sampled piano. The Galaxy Vintage D -- an alternative -- is fussy and installation of updates I have found to be frustrating (Do I have all the files? Am I installing the correct update, when some materials say "update 1.1.1" while elsewhere they say "update 1.0.1."). Regarding Pianoteq: I own it. Yes it's playable. But it sounds weird. Do any of the demos here:

http://www.pianoteq.com/listen_by_instrument

or here:

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/fxpcorner/index.php

sound as good as these:

http://www.synthogy.com/demos/italiangrand.html ?

If so, please point me to that demo so I can try it on my own copy of Pianoteq. And if somebody has their own private killer fxp, please share it.

And, yes, I would bother with the Ivory Italian Grand. Once the velocity curve is set correctly, it works and is a pleasure to play and listen to.

In my opinion the best pianos from ivory are the German and the Italian (Steinway and Fazioli). The Steinway has unbeatable warmth when played softly, yet it can bite when played hardly, there's so much variation in its timbre! I suppose this has something to do with the original Steinway sampled. It is perfect for Chopin work. However I find some slight hiss in the samples, not a big deal but is still somehow irritating. The Fazioli has a very powerful sound, bright and at the same time deep but less varied than the Steinway and I find it somehow brighter when played softly and is thus not very suitable for the most intimate pianissimo passsages. I wish Steinway didn't have that hiss or Fazioli was a bit warmer when played softly. If I had to choose only one software piano, regardless of the price, I would go for the Ivory Steinway, however it is expensive because it's not sold separately and comes with the Bosendorfer (don't like the sound at all) and Yamaha (too bright and unconvincing). If the price matters though, I would go for the Italian which can be almost universal except for the mentioned lack of softness. I think with some tweaking it can be made softer.

If I am really on a tight budget, I would go for the Vintage D. It has the same warmth as Ivory Steinway, however its playability is somehow worse. The re-pedalling is badly implemented and the whole piano doesn't run smoothly at all.

I wouldn't buy Pianoteq in its current version no matter how playable it is.

CyberGene, I completely agree -- across the board -- with what you've said. Your comments on the Synthogy Ivory Bosendorfer and Yamaha are consistent with my experience. The Ivory Bosie is just strange. I cannot figure out why the Ivory Bosie is so uninteresting. I've only played a real Bosendorfer a few times, but I recall being very impressed with the real thing, not bored by it. Similarly, the Yamaha C7 can be a very expressive piano. My only point, really, is that the Ivory Steinway and Fazioli are so good, I'm surprised at the shortcomings of the other two.

that statement makes no sense.

would the Ivory Fazioli have applications beyond classical? sounds like it might be too bright for reflective or more intimate pop/jazz style playing?

the Ivory 2 Steinway is the first sampled steinway that i really, really like. the Vintage D demos sound good, but not worth bothering with if you already have the Ivory 2 steinie. The galaxy 2 steinway was awful, imho, and the garritan had a plinkiness in the midrange that i didn't like (although its a nice overall program).

it must be hard to sample a Bos and capture the uniqueness of its construction. i couldn't warm up to the Ivory Bos either, although i like the yamaha better than the earlier posts from folks using I2.

I find the Ivory Fazioli very versatile. But, ultimately, its use across various styles of music is an issue of personal taste. I appreciate too the stability of Ivory; you probably could perform live with it without a hiccup. I've never quite gotten Galaxy Vintage D to work as well, but I'm looking forward to their coming update, because the piano sounds quite beautiful. I've not gotten as wide and responsive (smooth) a dynamic range out of the Vintage D, but I've not put the time into tweaking it optimally because I was having performance issues with it when I was running it on a MacBook Pro, using Kontakt 4 Player. Now, I've got an iMac i7 quad core and Kontakt 5 Player, so when the Vintage D update is finally released, I plan to roll up the sleeves and get the thing working as well as it can.

Bruce B -- what do you think of the Grand 3. Does it still lack a partial pedal? How's the Bosendorfer sound on it?

I'm still using Ivory v1.5

I really like the Bosie for it's very smooth sound and mellow bass. But yes, it's a bit odd in the midrange C4 octave.

I like the Steinway, too. It has a great deal of power. The Eb4 note sounds a bit sour, though, like my old upright.

I don't care much for the Yamaha. Too bright.

I haven't tried the Fazioli because I don't have enough storage to add the v1.6 upgrade.

I see (above) that someone has referenced the Pianoteq site where they offer fxp files. I'll have to give those a try. Maybe one of the contributors has managed to tweak it to give acceptable sound? I'll try some of those tonight. One last attempt before I give up on it.

QUESTION: I'm thinking about buying Ivory 2. Does anyone run this on an older computer? I can easily increase storage on my old laptop by adding a $50 drive, but I'd prefer not to replace the whole laptop.

So ... can anyone tell me what modest computer you're using to run Ivory 2?

i like the sound of the Yamaha in the Grand 3 a lot. i think sampletekk did all the pianos for the grand 3, and the yamaha was the one they were most enthusiastic about ( i had some email traffic with one of the fellows who developed it).

but i don't find the overall program very easy to use and doesn't run smoothly on my XP desktop i use for music. it takes a long time to load the samples. But, in fairness, i've added a faster (7200 rpm) 2d hard drive for running Ivory 2, and i have the Grand 3 libary loaded and running off the main drive, so i might be creating my own problems with it. i might move the library to the faster drive and see if it works better. i didn't care for the other pianos much, and i don't have any interest in uprights or electrics. so for me, the Grand 3 had a lot of stuff on it i didn't care for. i think the pricing is down to $125-150 so its pretty good value. you got to have a synthogy dongle to go along with your iLok dongle!

my impression at this early point in time as an owner of Ivory II, is that Ivory II is better in all aspects from the Grand 3.


EDIT: to answer your question more directly, kippesc, i'm not aware of partial pedaling being available and i didn't care much for the bos. but i've yet to find a bos i like on any of my sample pianos (Galaxy 2 imperial is pretty good..) and i tend to lose interest in the instrument pretty quickly.

I will have to pull out The Grand 3 and load it on my iMac. It was the first software piano I purchased (fall of 2009, I think), and I could never get it running terribly well on my MacBook Pro. But Sampletekk's role in both The Grand 3 and the Nord makes me want to revisit the issue. It'll take practically a day to load the thing from the DVDs.

We seem to be in an lull at the moment in digital piano innovation. A few years ago (2009), Yamaha released the Avants and the CP stage pianos; Roland released the V Piano and then the Supernatural pianos. Ivory announced Ivory II and then pushed back the release date several months. The Vintage D was released. Around that time, I got up to speed on digital pianos, and I figured innovation would continue apace. The computers are better -- SSDs, quad cores and Thunderbolt interfaces. I'm ready for the digital pianos to evolve to the next level. Here's hoping that Pianoteq 4 is a homerun.

it would be nice to see someone get aggressive about a turnkey solution that is both upgradable and expandable, incorporating both hardware and software. too many times you buy something and a month or two later you see something better come out. that's true for all technology but its especially frustrating when it comes to higher ticket stuff like DP's.

If Nord Piano used a little bit better keyboard and more memory, it would have been the perfect compromise between hardware and software piano.

i put a post on the NAMM thread about building the perfect DP beast. i sent the post to Nord customer feedback address. i really think they are on the right path..

There something EssBrace mentioned and I would like to confirm with both my hands (literally and figuratively) - having a piano which is ready to play in an instant instead of loading software is really important and often neglected. The piano sound in my CA63 is not something spectacular although not bad but I tend to use it much more than Ivory just because I may test even a chord instantly. Having said that, a digital hardware piano has big advantage over software if you're that type of player who oftenly stops by the piano for just few minutes. Of course if you have a specially dedicated computer with a software piano running constantly and hooked to your keyboard it would be a different story.

That's why Nord Piano is the step in right direction indeed. I'd bet version 2 will be terrific and the guys at Nord will prepare some huge and smashing gigabyte piano for it

I agree - the only two things Nord need to do is to increase sample size (although the results they get now are equal to or better than the hardware competition) to move it closer to the sample libraries and to perhaps consider fitting a better action in the NP.

OK, to put it simply - this is my personal opinion:

A beginner would be better off using the voices on the DP, rather than getting bogged down in the workings of samples or physical modeling.

It can be a terrible time waster - trust me (I can verify it).

Glenn

exactly right, many even non beginners still use DPs so why not? it save you some time and frustrations. You turn it on and you play, simple as that.

Meh. I guess I disagree with those who think beginners need not (or should not) mess with software pianos. When I first switched to using a software piano I noticed myself practicing ever so much more. Hearing something beautiful that you are creating is the payoff that keeps you practicing. When you are a beginner, in particular, these payoffs are few and far between.

I always use a software piano now, just because it keeps me coming back. I don't mind the onboard sounds much, but they have never satisfied or inspired me, even when I first got my piano and my standards were much lower. I always recommend software pianos to anyone who uses digital and cares at all about playing.

My old computer is dedicated to this purpose and my software piano is in the auto-startup list. Booting the computer is just part of the routine of starting up the piano. I don't think I could ever go back.

Another reason to recommend software pianos to beginners: almost all digital pianos seem to have insufficient sustain and the notes die out quickly. This is to hide looping, I think, or maybe just have shorter samples. Whatever it is, it can lead to the habit of mashing the sustain pedal too much. Then when you play an acoustic grand things are super muddy and you have to re-learn your pedal technique. I had this problem with my old Yamaha digital, and I have it with my current Kawai digital. The transition to the steinway acoustic grand I had lessons on, for example, was very hard. This is not a problem with Galaxy and definitely not a problem with pianoteq. Nice long decays, just like a real (large) piano.

I think the onboard sounds of just about every digital lend themselves to bad technique for this reason, and they just aren't that inspiring when compared with a current-generation software piano.

I actually think Pianoteq sustains more like an organ than any acoustic piano I've ever played. I know that everyone has their favorite DP, but I think the Roland RD700-NX merits mention. Turn it on; put headphones on; sounds good/great. You don't even need a headphone amp. The only buttons you need to push are the piano keys themselves. I'm surprised at how much I enjoy playing that DP. And I think you get Roland's top action in the bargain (unless there are variations of PHA III actions, depending on the DP).

Thanks everybody. Have gone through the responses and using advanced back-of-envelope statistical techniques, have come up with the following results...

Thirteen people expressed a preference. Three products were the most talked about, either positively or negatively...

Pianoteq.
Positive 5. Negative 7.

Galaxy Vintage D.
Positive 5. Negative 1

Ivory Italian Grand.
Positive 5, Negative 0

I reckon it's worth trying these to see which work best for me (trouble is only Pianoteq has a trial version...)

If you'd said up front that this was how you'd decide, I'd have created some different login IDs.

I don't see the point of tallying in this way.

• The sampling method is flawed.
• The mechanism for mapping a poster's message to a positive/negative score is subjective.
• The results don't tell you much.

There's really only one way to judge these piano tools ... play and listen.

I seem to recall a website that allowed users to play-test a selection of different software pianos online. Obviously not quite the same as the real thing, but definitely worth seeking out.

Cheers,
James
x

MacMacMac,

"I don't see the point of tallying in this way."
The point is that at the end of all this I've got a clear steer about which software might be worth investigating, based on the experience and expertise of the users of this forum.

"The sampling method is flawed."
Yes, it is. Can you suggest a better alternative?

"The mechanism for mapping a poster's message to a positive/negative score is subjective."
Yes, it is. I don't see how asking peoples opinion and taking a view on what it is could be anything other than subjective. What's your point?

"The results don't tell you much."
They've given me a good steer as to which products might be worth a try, based on the experience and expertise of the users of this forum. That's not nothing.

"There's really only one way to judge these piano tools ... play and listen."
I agree. But a rough idea of what tools exist, and which ones the user of this forum think are worthwhile is a good starting point, don't you think?


Personally I can't understand why you can't see the value in this exercise, or why you feel it necessary to trash it so. I've come onto a forum populated by people with more experience and expertise than me andl asked their opinion. What's wrong with that?

That sounds about right. PianoTeq being highly controversial, Vintage D well liked except for a few people who have technical problems with it (I suspect all on mac), and Ivory well liked, if you can stomach the iLok.

It's a major pain there are no trial versions. Best bet: find someone who owns one. Or just buy one on faith. People tend to collect VST's anyway.

I have tried lots of different Pianos and while this is just a matter of opinion, in fact, I can vary my preferred piano based on my mood that day, these are the ones I use:

Galaxy Vintage D
Alicia's Keys
Imperfect Samples Fazioli
I got some others that I need to work with a bit more to see if I like them.
As for the ones I do not like...

Pianoteq....playable yes...sounds like a plastic casio , YES! Sorry guys but that thing just sounds horribly fake and I tried it with high end speakers and gear so no blaming there.
Akoustic Piano...no soul...very dull.
Ivory...too big...not really that awesome..that is the old one...have not tried the new one.
Most of the native instruments ones I do not like except the ones mentioned earlier.

Regards

I have no intention of trashing you or the thread. I'm just pointing out the problems that come from sampling a small population, and the problem of teasing out information from an opinion poll.

Such polls can be useful. But read up on the subject of polling and you'll see that they require a GREAT deal of care and effort, best left to experts.

That cannot be reasonably done in this forum. So, lacking that, the tallied numbers won't yield any meaningful scores or rankings. I don't see much point in tallying positives and negatives.

All you'll get is a partial list of piano synths/samplers. Perhaps that's enough?

I've never tried Imperfect samples, though I love Galaxy Vintage D. The imperfect samples piano has four levels (basic, pro, complete, extreme). Does it matter which one you get? Also, does it work with Kontakt play (the version that comes for free) or do you have to buy Kontakt? One thing I like about Vintage D is that it comes with Kontakt play (or is authorized by native instruments or something) so you don't have to buy the full version.

Yep, that'll be Pianoteq!

well, for stupid and ignorant posts no sense to response.

You should learn how to accept opinions different than yours. You can start with realizing people are different and therefore have their own preferences and opinions. With that in mind you'll next realize that when they don't like something you like, it's not because they want to insult you. Therefore you don't have to insult them in revenge.

Mac Mac Mac - Fair enough. Won't attempt to sumarise forum opinion again.

Actually MacMacMac is being silly. Of course this is not a scientific poll, but it's not like you are trying to publish this in a peer-reviewed journal or anything. You asked for ideas for good VST's and got a bunch of responses. You counted up how many people were pro or con. That's what people do in real life and it's plenty good enough for getting advice (in fact it's much better than what people normally do). This was not a large or unbiased sample, but to suggest that you not even try to draw any conclusions based on people's recommendations is kind of stupid, especially since the alternative is essentially to make a blind decision.

If asking for advice and drawing conclusions from how many people recommend what is best left to the experts then we are all in trouble.

Anyway, it sounds like you are taking him seriously, and that would be a mistake. If you don't want to summarize forum opinion, that's fine, but don't avoid it only because you are afraid of sinning against statistics or something.

For those who hear PianoTeq as terribly thin or artificial:

1. I sometimes raise the volume in PT while possibly lowering the soundcard\sound system volume. I sometimes do the opposite.
2. A few weeks ago, I found that the local Guitar Center has PianoTeq and several other software pianos (Alicia's Keys, for one that I recall) on the computer in the room they devote to monitors. I spent about an hour going through these pianos. Each had its own timbre and defining qualities (default amount of reverb and stereo width, etc), but PianoTeq sounded certainly every bit as much like a real piano as the others. Many times it sounded better. I think my more general point or suggestion here is that one may want to double-check one's system by playing PT on someone else's setup, just to be sure that the setup isn't the problem. I do hate to sing praises to Guitar Center, here, but their computer in their monitor room, here in Atlanta (technically, the Marietta branch), has a wide range of software pianos, so it offers a good testing ground, albeit on 5" monitors. GC has quietly created what I think we've all wanted: a way to compare these pianos before purchasing.

That's interesting. It may be that PianoTeq sounds great when put through speakers in a largeish room. My dissatisfaction comes after careful listening through pretty good headphones in a quiet room in my home studio (i.e. spare bedroom). The difference was very noticeable in that environment. I actually preferred my onboard sounds in that environment.

But lots of things sound good when put through speakers in a non-quiet room that don't on a closer listen. For example, the onboard sounds on my Kawai MP8 apparently are really great in a live situation, with a big noisy room etc. Through headphones (even with various onboard reverb used), not so much.

Hi Jake- is that the GC in Atlanta? its hard to believe they've done something so useful. normally when i go there to try a few keyboards i have to play over the PA system blasting music and advertising....
What did you think of Alicia's Keys?

Bruce B: It's technically the Marietta GC, on Cobb Parkway. They don't make a big thing of it. No signs. Just a Mac sitting in their monitor room with 5" monitors attached, a lot of programs installed, and a not too terrible controller. I sat there for about an hour, on a weekday, granted, and was only asked twice if I needed any help. (Note that this is in the monitor room, which is back past the keyboard room and the turntable room. A much quieter place.) My guess is that they want to let people try out the software, but don't want to make it too well known, since then people would be lining up to play all of the software in the same way that folks come in to play the Motifs in the keyboard room.)

I only played Alicia's Keys for about a minute. It seemed to have more reverb than I wanted. Can't say that I liked it. On the other hand, I didn't experiment with the parameters, much. Someone who knows the program might have gotten a better sound.

I have Komplete 8 and Pianoteq, along with my hardware pianos and acoustic. I enjoy Pianoteq more than the other software pianos, but I don't like the reverb they use, so I turn that off and run it through EW Spaces if I want reverb.

What do you like about Pianoteq and how do you use it? I often think it sounds like the piano in the Richter Sophia recital (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=3889) only the tuning is more stable. I also am skeptical that the multitude of adjustable parameters are helpful in making the piano sound more realistic. At this point, there ought to be a default or widely circulated fxp that gets it closer to the sound of a modern high quality solo piano recording.

That is a good point although in my case, because I do mastering and mixing in that room, I have 3 sets of speakers so that I can get different "perspectives" on the sounds. In a mix PianoTeq is actually quite easy to make it come clean and blend nicely (although I still do not like the sound) but as a solo instrument for me, it is just nowhere near where my piano sound should be.
Like someone said, some people take opinions on freaking program as a personal attack....I think some people need to grow up.
This is just an opinion...if we all liked the same thing, then there will be one single product for each different thing.

shaolin95: What kind of solo piano sound are you wanting? A classical solo sound or more of a rock sound? Could you mention particular piano sounds on particular songs that are widely known? Maybe trying to discuss the specific sound on a specific recording or two can lead us to define more concretely what we miss or want.

I think the sound on Uchida's recordings of the Mozart Sonatas is pretty great. I think that may be a Hamburg Steinway D. Perahia's Goldberg Variations are good. For a Bosendorfer sound, Andsnes's Haydn Sonatas disc is very good. Kissin's Pictures at an Exhibition performance sounds great. Dave McKenna's piano on Christmas Ivory has great sparkle. Thibaudet's piano on the soundtrack of Pride & Prejudice is gorgeous. The demos for Ivory II and Galaxy Vintage D sound very good.

Is there an fxp that will make Pianoteq sound close to ANY of the above? Or, perhaps easier, what beautiful acoustic recording does Pianoteq sound like?

thanks for the details Jake. great to know that...Bruce

Are you talking about your posts in particular or those of others?

Dont get me wrong, the photograph of the toilet you posted was enlightening to say the least

I don't hear any of the current fxp's sounding exactly like the above recordings that I could find on line. My impression, after a few minutes of listening, is that the reverb on the recordings is not a small part of the sound. Have you reviewed the fairly recent fxp's on the fxp page of the Pianoteq site? Some of them may be to your liking if you can get the reverb right. Are you using the Play version or the demo?

I have the standard version. And I've tried most of the highly rated fxps. My biggest problem is with the tenor and bass, which sounds nasal and metallic, lacking in richness, lacking in highs. I'm hoping Pianoteq 4 gets the program closer to what I'm looking for. It is "playable," and its interface is very easy to use and useful -- great velocity curve feature; a/b feature; recorder; metronome. It's a good practice tool. But, as far as I can tell, the program presently falls well short of modern acoustic recordings. I do hope it gets to the level of the recordings I mentioned someday soon.

I bought Pianoteq Play a while ago and I think it's pretty good, especially at the price. I think it's important to remember that with the exception of Alicia's Keys, Pianoteq Play is far cheaper than most of the other software being discussed in this thread. Alicia's Keys is a similar price, but offers just one instrument and I couldn't find a playable demo anywhere when I was looking. Pianoteq however offer a free downloadable demo, which although not fully functional, is definitely functional enough to give the product a proper test with your own PC and music keyboard. It's a shame that the other software companies don't have the confidence to provide proper demos of their software. Pianoteq Play gets my vote - it's a tough act to beat at the price.

I agree that it's very annoying that most other software piano makers do not provide demos. Shocking, even, as I think it would be very helpful in giving people confidence to buy. Since they don't try it, they don't know how much better it is.

I certainly also like PianoTeq's demo (it even has a version for linux) and I was pretty impressed with it until I tried a sampled piano. No offense intended, but it sounds like you have not actually had the chance to play a sampled software piano. For $45 additional you can get for example Vintage D and you will realize that at 1.5x the price and many times better sound, it's a real steal. I believe that if you got the chance to try one of the current generation of sampled pianos and A/B it with PianoTeq, you would change your vote, price notwithstanding.

There are many excellent sampled pianos for between $50 and $99, but they are the last generation and mostly don't have half pedaling. Still they sound better than PianoTeq and I would prefer any of them. When I demo'd PianoTeq, I regretfully decided that I actually liked my onboard sounds better.

they just afraid you won't find their pianos so good as they claim. Pianoteq confidence speaks for itself here.

rob.art, are you working for Pianoteq by any chance? I wouldn't believe if you say no.

so why you ask?

CyberGene: If Pianoteq had planted someone here to push their product, they'd likely choose someone with a better attitude.

rob.art, depending on your answer I would know whether you lie That's why I am asking.

Anyway, MacMacMac has a point. I've forgotten how fanatic some Pianoteq users might be.

yeah right, like Ivory users are all saints and chicken baby...

This thread has turned a bit ugly and quite immature - mods need to shut it down now.

Why shut it down? Mods should just clean it up a little so we can continue discussing Pianoteq and its alternatives.

Essentially PianoTeq does better marketing than the sampled pianos, which is one reason people who love it really love it--hardcore fans are the best type of advertising. Let's face it, if the quality was the same I think we'd all prefer to be using modeled pianos than sampled ones. It's more technologically cool, requires less hardware, is more flexible, and just seems to be a great idea. I can totally understand being a fan. Frankly I was a fan until I used it.

It's hard to believe that a sampled piano can compete with a modeled one when you just read about the two concepts. The thing is, though, that as PianoTeq has improved its modeling, the sampled pianos have improved their sample quality, number of levels, and streaming technology, and they have incorporated some elements of modeling (sympathetic resonance, etc) so that their overall quality has kept up ahead of PianoTeq.

Imperfect instruments has a 127 sample level Fazioli--that's the limit that sampled pianos will approach. When you have a full sample for every single MIDI velocity, it becomes hard to argue that modeled pianos can be more expressive. Throw in samples for hammers, key-off, etc., and modeling for resonance, and it becomes unclear how a fully modeled piano could beat it, even in theory.

Bottom line: I think a fully modeled piano is a great idea, but I have seen sampled pianos improve at the same rate or faster, so I suspect they will always stay ahead.

gvfarns, I think that was the most precise opinion regarding Pianoteq in this thread so far

First time I read about Pianoteq I was already convinced it would be light years ahead of sample based pianos. Until I tested it. Hands down, technologically it seems the only right thing to do and I can understand why it has attracted such die-hard fans. It would certainly appeal to technology-conscious people mainly. I understand there are also pianists who love the way it feels and sounds (and probably don't realize its underpinnings) but I believe the people who defend it so fiercely are the former.

I think you're not getting something clearly yet - sampled based instruments slowly but surely are going away and sooner or later we'll be dealing only with modeled one. This matter only of technology and algorithms to make sampled instruments
obsolete.

I don't think the data supports that. Over time, the number of available sampled pianos has grown significantly, as has the quality. Ivory, Galaxy, East West Pianos, Native Instruments, imperfect samples. They all seem to be doing fine. All sampled. And there are many others as well. Every time I turn around there's another. Modeled pianos, on the other hand...just PianoTeq. I guess you can count TruePianos because it's a combo sampled-modeled.

Modern sampled pianos are 99% sampled, and those samples are getting more and more precise. The other 1% is some kind of modeling. I think 20 years down the road that ratio will be about the same. Computers easily handle current sampled pianos, so I see no reason to reduce the reliance on piano samples.

Digital piano sounds have moved a little bit towards modeling (Roland SuperNatural, etc), but remember those guys really do have hardware limitations. And even in those cases, they are hybrid model-sample machines. I see hardware improving more quickly than software in this area, so my guess is that even digital piano sounds, with all their limitations, will continue to be mostly sample driven for a very, very long time. Perhaps forever.

For an analogy, consider that one of the first applications computer scientists had for processors was generating a modeled human voice to replace recorded ones. It's a much harder problem than they thought. Many, many years and millions of dollars later, computer voices are still pretty rudimentary and it's not difficult to tell that they are not human. The menus that companies use for automated phone responses are still recorded from humans, not completely generated. And that is an area with far more years of brilliant scientists working than emulating a piano sound is. The need for flexibility in that area is much greater than it is in pianos. We really only need 127 levels, with the various sustains, and a little modeling for sympathetic resonance, and there's really no more need for flexibility than that. With fewer resources and less need, I don't see pure modeled pianos replacing sampled ones any time soon (let's say, in our lifetimes). This is especially true as sampled pianos so easily borrow a little bit of modeling here or there wherever pure sampled pianos are weak.

Modeled pianos will only replace sampled ones if they 1) sound better, not just about as good and 2) have some advantage relative to sampled pianos. With the improvements in sampled piano quality and flexibility, I frankly do not see this happening.

Or, to put it another way: It's easier to make sampling sound real ... because the sample is a recording of a real piano. With modeling the road ahead is tough. Very tough.

You forgot about roland V-piano. Sampled pianos were doing fine for obvious reasons same as vinyls recording were doing fine when CD entered the market. Not for a long though as you know.
Sampling is simply not efficient and introduces too many artifact during recording. To do piano sampling playable tons of gigabytes were needed and to make it fully dynamic and real
you'd need tons more. Not practical at all same as not practical is using wave files in you mp3 player. In the end all comes to sound generation right? whether it is physical string or hardware oscillator (in computer) makes no difference when you can reproduce all parameters of the sound and this is already happening in pianoteq and V-piano. The ratio sampled versus modeled will drastically change not in 20 years but in 5 years.


p.s.
I bet nobody here would recognize the difference between those two "competitors" in blind test when tune pianoteq to simulate e.g.Ivory or other sampled piano.

Okay, that caught my eye. Can anyone comment on how this alternative to Pianoteq performs/sounds?

I wasn't forgetting about the V-Piano. But the only advantage you mention is that sampled pianos require gigabytes of space. How many gigabytes, though? Well in the case of imperfect samples, 5 perspectives at 127 levels plus the staccago samples, etc., occupies 162 GB. Is that beyond future hardware capacity? I don't think so. And that's more perspectives than necessary by far. It's also more layers by far than is necessary--it's the limiting case. I am very confident that a listener could not tell the difference between the 18 layer version and 127 layer version of imperfect samples, especially if there is intra-layer blending. I mentioned 127 as the limit, but I don't think imperfect samples is any better than Ivory. In fact I suspect it's not as good. Ivory also has a Fazioli, so someone with lots of money could buy both and compare.

The V piano and other digitals that use modeling do so to avoid storing large samples for lots of different sounds, like synthesizers and other instruments on very wimpy hardware. But that's not the best way to do things. If they had more space and wanted great quality, they would go the other way. And we don't know what V piano modeling comprises. Are we sure it is not a hybrid design? I bet not. Also, sampled pianos sound much better than the V piano.

I think it would be cool if modeled pianos took over as CD's did, but 5 years ago people were saying it was all going to be modeling within 5 years. It hasn't happened, and I don't think it will.

Your statement about people not being able to tell the difference in a blind test is super-wrong. Many, many people can attest to that, and there are youtube videos comparing pianoteq to sampled pianos and illustrating the differences as well.

Remember, I'm not biased against pianoteq. Rather, I loved the idea and was a fan until I started A/B testing it with sampled pianos which contrary to what you say, sound much more organic, lively, and expressive.

rob.art, I'm glad you like PianoTeq. It's good to have options so we can each buy what we like. But I have certainly A/B compared it with lots of sampled pianos and found it hardcore lacking, as have others in this thread and forum.

Kippesc, one person in this thread said they like the Fazioli I mentioned better than some other sampled pianos, but my guess is that they don't use the "extreme" version, which has all those many layers. Really, as was mentioned recently, the 13 or so layers current software pianos is far more than adequate. Adding more would not improve the sound or playability. A blend between layer 6 and 7 is just not different enough from an actual layer sampled (or generated) between those timbres for anyone to hear.

As I mentioned early, digital pianos have like 3 or 4 layers typically (and super short loops) and yet some of them sound pretty good too. You don't need 127.

We want authenticity. Efficiency doesn't really matter.
Such as?
Thirty years ago, 5 MB was a big disk drive. Ten years ago, 20,000 MB was a big disk drive. Today, 2,000,000 MB is a big disk drive. If sampling needs lots of sample storage to get authenticity, so be it.
Nope. The difference is like night and day. I even tried the "Ivory" fxp files offered on Pianoteq's web site, but they didn't impress. The sound just wasn't much different from the supplied defaults.

But ... perhaps a blind test is called for? Feel free.

So given the lack of availability of proper demos for anything other than Pianoteq, (by proper I mean something that will run on your PC and work with your music keyboard), did all you sampling fans buy your software blind, or were you lucky enough to find a store that could demo it? I'm reluctant to spend $150+ on something that I haven't tried.

I had a quick look at the Galaxy Piano website and some of the sites of their resellers and I have to say that compared with the Pianoteq site, they are pretty poor. Not only are no demos available but I've yet to find a site that promises it will work with anything newer than Windows Vista. It could well be a great product, but they aren't doing themselves any favours with their marketing.

Yeah, the good sampled pianos have no good demos. Unfortunately, you have to find someone who has it or buy blind. Or there is sometimes piracy. Please note: I would never steal software, but I have been known to download or hack it to demo before buying and then delete if I decide not to buy. You can make up your own mind about that option.

You can take my opinion, though. I can hardly imagine anyone trying Vintage D or Galaxy II (those are the two I've tried and liked best--never played Ivory) through high quality headphones, comparing it to the PianoTeq demo A/B on the same piano and headphones, and then regretting the purchase.

I agree ... the lack of demos caused me some consternation with Ivory and Galaxy. I, too, am reluctant to buy until I can first try. So, back then (nearly 3 years ago) I had only some online performances (You Tube and elsewhere) on which to base a decision.

Meanwhile, I tried the free Pianoteq demo, the old version 2. It was horrible. So I bought Ivory.

Perhaps a year later I tried the Pianoteq v3. Much better than v2. Much. But still very synthetic.

Yet another year+ later (last month) I tried the 3.6.x demo. Still not acceptable.

I wonder why the other brands offer no demos?

Perhaps software theft is too much of problem?

Perhaps they sell mostly to the music industry ... and those buyers are already familiar with the product ... no demo needed?

Do music stores (such as GC and SA) sell the sampler software? If so, couldn't they have a demo setup? There would be little concern about software theft, so long as they locked up the PC. (I've not been to a music store in a long time, and I don't remember seeing any such setup. Has anyone seen such?)

Someone earlier in this thread (I believe) reported doing this at Guitar Center. Cheap monitors, though. Better would be to do so using your own high quality headphones.

Edit: Another possible reason not to have demos would be that it would cost a lot of bandwidth for lots and lots of people to download gigabytes of samples. Not sure whether that's a constraint, but it's possible.

By the way, regarding the earlier Fazioli question, vpiano.net has a comparison of Ivory's Italian Grand and Imperfect Samples' Fazioli. To my ears Ivory dominates by a fair margin, but it looks like they are mixing mic positions for Imperfect Samples, so that might be making it sound bad. Also the Ivory recording is very dry. A little reverb might make them a little more comparable.

Anyway, if they used the many-layers version for this demo, then we have evidence that more layers is not what's needed if we want to improve on the current generation of sampled pianos.

of course this is not realistically possible to download online sampled piano online but they could provide virtual chamber to play it limited version in the cloud.

1. I purchased Galaxy Vintage D as a download. It took a while, but they sell it as a download.

2. If you have the Vintage D files but have not yet purchased a license, Kontakt Player works in "demo" mode for, I think, 15 minutes. I figured that out by accident when I was loading Vintage D onto a second computer. The standard Galaxy pianos license is for two computers.

Right on both counts. Unfortunately, if you don't have access to someone who has it, you can't get an unlicensed copy that will work in demo mode. Or maybe what you are saying is that it's legal to get the library from whatever questionable source and use it in demo mode? That would be cool.

It's definitely true that you can get it as a download, as you can many software pianos. However, the number of downloads they would have to do to offer a demo is possibly much, much higher. Yet your point is well taken. The download is not that long, so it may not have anything to do with why they don't provide a demo version. Maybe they are just super old fashioned in their approach to sales. Ivory, at least, is old fashioned in the sense that they try and impose copy protection measures strong enough that piracy is impossible (and fail at it), rather than putting weak measures in place and relying on the fact that most people are honest and won't try and circumvent them.

Well, I just order a boxed Galaxy Vintage D from amazon.com and I also have a new computer system on order from Dell. I know very little about this stuff so I hope I will be able to get some insight as to how to deal with a software piano on this forum.

I just decided I am going to go for the gusto and see if these fantastic piano sounds actually can be produced. If it works out, the price for this software certainly is a lot more cost effective than buying a new DP every once in awhile in a futile attempt at the "perfect" sound.

I will know more in a week or two ...

dmd, congrats for taking the plunge!

Which Dell model did you go for, by the way?
Do you know what kind of sound card it uses, etc.?

James
x

Yeah, that's what I was going to ask. In particular, do you have an external sound interface and nice ASIO drivers? If not I can recommend the Behringer UCA202 or UFO202. Dirt cheap and very little latency. You might already have something better, though.

Actually I'm not sure whether there's a latency problem using internal sound cards. Anyone use built in sound with a modern software piano under windows?

By the way, dnd, you don't happen to live in central PA anywhere near state college, do you? I might be able to help IRL if you have any issues. I feel some responsibility since I'm, like, the biggest Vintage D fan on these forums.

These are a few of the line items from the initial quote.
I do not see anything about a sound card, unless one of these means that ... but I do not think so.


XPS 8300

XPS 8300 Intel Core i7-2600 processor(8MB Cache, 3.4GHz)

8GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1333MHz - 4x2GB

1.5TB Serial ATA 2 Hard Drive 7200 RPM

AMD Radeon HD 6670 1GB DDR5

Dell AX510PA Sound Bar - Flat Panel Attachable Speakers

I use asio4all drivers with 64 samples with i5 2500k CPU and the latency is under 10ms which is pretty good

Wow, I sure do ... Williamsport. AND ... as far as feel some responsibility ... YES ... LOL ... it was a few of your comments in this (and others, I think) that started me down the road to the Vintage D software. However, I read user comments in other places and just decided that it must be good.

But, there is still the part about getting it to sound good using my DP. We will see how it goes. Thanks for the offer of helping and if worse comes to worse, I may enlist your help.

"I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Sweet. If you ever are in my neck of the woods and want to come obsess about digital pianos, I'm game. One of these days I wouldn't mind seeing a CA-63 IRL as well.