I just saw this on the Pianoteq forum:

Pianoteq 4 foretaste

It's short, but it sounds good, and apparently they will be ready with Pianoteq 4 in a few months.

I hear some woody harmonics in "them there hills"... Nice...

Yes, it sounds pretty impressive... although it's difficult to really tell a great deal from that short clip.

Cheers,
James
x

Not bad although I'm still able to detect a little metallic pianoteqishness (sorry for the word) in the thrill.

In this very short clip I can hear only perhaps a slight improvement - nothing earth shattering.

Greg.

Sounds better than I remember.

I wonder what the aim is for Pianoteq 4 - more sonic realism, more models or improved behaviours (by all accounts the behaviours such as dynamics are very good anyway). If the aim is improved sonic realism that is very welcome but this would therefore suggest the developers are aware that the currently available versions don't sound close enough to a real piano. Which of course is an opinion that would be immediately shouted down by the Pianoteq zealots.

I mean, if Pianoteq 6,7,8 or 9 (or 47) or however long it takes for it to become all it can be, consistently deliver improvements in fidelity (to a real piano), I wonder what the fanatics that so robustly defend the current version will say. Just wondering...

I think classical musicians will like that.

its way off the mark for anyone looking for a clean, deeper and more intimate sound useful for jazz/pop solo work.

I remember reading an interview. The technology exists to make it sound MUCH better but it has to run in real-time on hardware people already own. Would you buy a software piano that requires a rack full of high end computers and over night processing before you could hear the sound? Maybe some people would but not many. I'm sure they would add in more realism if they knew every one of their customers owned a 12-core 3Ghz Apple Mac Pro but they'd sell few copies if you really needed a $6,500 computer. I think much of what we hear is driven by market economics rather than technology.

Files removed pending resolution of copyright issues.

Glenn

Genn, what are these? Are they generated using PianoTeq 4 beta or something?

Not saying right now.

You listeners tell me what's good and bad about both of them.

This is essentially a very blind test.

Glenn

If I can only choose between these 2, I'd say the tone from the A file is much nicer.

The 2nd one sounds like some crappy onboard electronic piano's tone.

The 1st one still sounds fake, but much better than the C (or 2nd) file.

It would also be useful and interesting if comments were quite specific.

Examples (to name only a few - some of you will find many more):

- is one or the other better in the bass, mid-range, or treble?

- are the sustains realistic or not?

- is the attack sound (which has considerable hammer noise or wood sound), realistic or not?

- one may have a more realistic bass, while the other has a heavier bass - but which is more realistic?

The difficulty in judging these kinds of samples is that many of us may not be really familiar with concert grand sounds in a live setting. I've listened to countless recordings, or videos on YouTube, but can't recall when I last heard one live. And most professional recordings of concert pianists have been "mastered" which includes any number of modifications.

Glenn

Hmmm. They have a lot of things in common. Is the second one sped up? It's significantly shorter.

This has bothered me considerably - supposedly both used the same midi file.

But at least one has been "monkeyed" with prior to converting/rendering to wave.

And this doesn't help matters any.

Glenn

I enjoy these blinded tests, but I'd bet the forum's most opinionated posters may scatter at the challenge. C'mon guys, I dare you to lay it on the line! Double dare!

I prefer the first file. For whatever reason, it sounds more organic, although that may have to do with better processing. One thing I noticed is that the sound of the first file sounds much better "between notes" to me. Whether that is the instrument or the effects/reverb, I do not know.

Well, it could be that the tempo was just not set right when it was bounced (or whatever you call that). That implies there are probably not both PianoTeq files, I guess. So now it's name the pianoteq recording time. I assume ONE of them at least is PianoTeq.

I prefer the first one, however as has already been noted, the second one has less ambience, and adding a bit of large reverb might help. Neither recording sounds particularly wonderful to me though. (nice, but not very special)

One little thing I notice in #1 is the very deep drum-like thuds which gives the sound more body - this aspect also sounds superior to #2.

Greg.

No 1 is okay for me - quite enjoyable. MUCH fuller sounding individual notes, especially upper mids than no.2. There is still a kind of "halo" of electronicness (new word for today) around the mids and upper bass. There's a kind of cold sterility to it but not bad at all - it's getting there anyway. Sounds very dynamic to me, but not woody or warm. Really doesn't offend me.

No 2 is just awful - extremely processed-sounding. Like a cheapo Casio from the 80s. I hear mechanical noises on no.2 that are not present on no.1. This sounds like my memory of listening to previous Pianoteq demos - artificial, processed, electronic, cold, metallic, unreal-sounding.

Steve

FWIW:

No 1 is almost perfect for me

No 2 reminded me of 2-operator FM

Ciao,
Paolo

Whatever happened to this thread?

What about it, Glenn. Time for the reveal?