Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Why all pianos are sampled not modeled?

But the CP1/5/50 AP voices test just like garden variety sampling (looping, stretching, etc.). They either aren't using modeling for the AP voices or it doesn't amount to much if anything in the way of audible difference.

I don't know, but it could be that they use elements of what we think of as real modeling for the EP voices, and people incorrectly assume they also do so for the AP voices (wouldn't be the first time their press materials led people astray and in their favor).

Or, if the AP voices really do use some modeling elements, it is perhaps more a way to further reduce sample storage rather than a way to audibly improve the voices. "Modeling" doesn't always mean an improvement in sound.

People might have forgotten the excitement generated in this forum by Yamaha's blurb on their Real Grand Expression CLP series, that they were the first to be sampled from the new CFX concert grand (or not.......): this is a quote from the Yamaha brochure, viz,
"The grand piano Voices of a Clavinova were obtained by recording the sounds of a Yamaha concert grand piano that led to the creation of the CFX, the piano selected for a performance by the 2010 winner of the famed International Frederyk Chopin Piano Competition."

Only to discover that the samples were identical to those used in previous CLPs, i.e. sampled from the ancient CF-IIIS.....
Deliberately misleading or not?

Extra note:

Just to compare (in a slightly different way) that is the reason I prefer the lowly (and far less expensive) Kawai EP3 over the Kawai CA95, as from the standpoint of projecting the sounds via built-in speakers it's simply the best.

The clarity of the sounds throughout the entire range of the keyboard in the EP3 is quite convincing and authentic to my ears, as I prefer the original "Harmonic Imaging" samples to the newer ones in the CA95.

Newer sounds are not necessarily "better" than the original ones. And, the EP3 has outstanding reverb effects, adding spaciousness and realism.

The EP3 is far too underrated by those who want only the latest stuff as it is still a best seller online, since 2008.

The problem with modeling isn't CPU power (today's modeled pianos don't come close to using the CPU power available in today's most powerful computers.) It's constructing realistic models. I've never heard a modeled piano that could fool a listener into thinking it was a Steinway (or Yamaha, or whatever piano you choose to model) even playing a simple scale. That is easy with sampling (which is basically a recording of the piano you chose to emulate). So modeling starts with an inferior base to build upon. It is easier to emulate some complex behaviors (not all) of an acoustic piano by modeling rather than additional samples. Hence, sampled pianos also use modeled signal processing for emulating some acoustic piano behavior. In some instances it's easier to model complex playing effects than to recreate those effects with samples, which theoretically gives modeling an advantage in those areas. But the basic limitation with modeling, and the reason that progress is so slow in those pianos, is developing more realistic, implementable models. If it were simple, it would be well known by now and everyone would do it.

And, with the V-Piano, it's a step backwards with trying to reincarnate a "Bosendorfer" Imperial concert grand.*

Looks like they failed with the Vintage II presets.

*And, no... it's not a "Bluthner," either.

As someone who has some background in audio processing I disagree with your assessment.

I'll quote the pianoteq 4 system requirements: "PIANOTEQ is CPU intensive software for it computes the sound in real time. However, most modern computers already offer a fully sufficient CPU. We recommend a CPU with dual or multiple cores, such as the Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD X2. By restricting polyphony or the internal sample rate in the Options menu, you can work with less powerful CPU's."

As to my argument about the trade off between storage/memory vs. cpu. pianoteq only requires 256 MB of RAM.

Sounds like pretty CPU intensive stuff to me.

synthogy by comparison requires a less powerful CPU but needs at least 2 Gigabyte of RAM and a whopping 77 Gigabyte of disc space. It also requires at least a 7200 rpm hard disc (SSD recommended).

The reason most models sound 'nothing like a real piano' is because the mikrocontroller and dsp platforms in modern DPs don't even offer a fraction of the system performance of a core2duo or quadcore desktop cpu.

The CPU in the Kronos X, one of the most powerful workstations on the market right now, is an Intel Atom 1.8 Ghz with access to 2 GB of RAM and 64 GB of SSD storage. The atom offers maybe 10% of the performance of a Core i3 or i5.

More than enough for the 10 GB austrian grand sample set. Won't run anything approaching the complexity of pianoteqs modeling though.

You are right, pv88, as always.

Roland never claimed that V2 was Bösendorfer. Nor Blüthner either. I've read their websites and their brochures, and nowhere did they mention any brand of acoustic piano. (Unlike some other DP manufacturers who mention specific models, seemingly to mislead.)

They leave it to others to make assumptions.

I didn't read the whole thread but it seems to me that some people believe that only modeling can capture the infinite possibilities of sound creation in acoustic piano. No, it can't.
Realistic piano modeling is very similar to photorealistic picture synthesis from scene models, where you need to account for ligth sources and all possible light bounces in the scene. Much much more money and effort is invested in this than piano modeling, because there is much more money to be made (think of Avatar and the like). Still, many simplifications need to be made (I know for sure, it's close to what I do) and rendering of a single frame on high-end CPUs takes several hours. Yes, the result looks good, but is still easily distinguishable from reality. So imagine how many corners need to be cut and simplifications made to "realistically" model piano sound in real-time.
I don't believe we are going to see realistic (as in "indistinguishable from the real thing") modeled piano in the near future, my bet is that sampling will ~always~ be ahead.

You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine, so....

Yes, a digital piano is a perfectly passable replica of an acoustic piano.(I take it we disagree on this matter)

To be honest most digital pianos are better than acoustics which are often poor quality, old, worn and out of tune.

Many people on this forum seem to be keener on computers than actually playing the piano.

Personally, despite the claims made by some, I actually believe most would probably find it difficult to tell an acoustic from a top of the range digital.

Wrong. Roland's leading product demonstrator Scott Tibbs states clearly that Vintage 2 is supposed to be a Bosendorfer. They don't mention specific piano makes in written material, probably for marketing or legal reasons but they certainly state explicitly what makes they have modelled during product demos. Vintage 1 is supposed to be a New York Steinway and Vintage 2 is a Bosendorfer.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Have you got a hot line to Roland, perhaps?
And just who is Scott Tibbs?
Some guy demonstrating on Youtube somewhere in USA? And you think Youtube videos are the be-all and end-all?

I saw a (British) Roland representative demonstrating the V-Piano Grand in London - were you there? At no time did he mention any piano brands. When I chatted to him later, he just said what Roland's brochure, website and manual said - V1 is a standard piano, V2 is a 'tranquil-sounding piano with a European atmosphere', and refused to get drawn into naming brands: in fact, he just said that Roland wanted two distinctively different kinds of piano sounds for the Vintage presets to suit different kinds of music.

You need to learn to distinguish what a few product demonstrators might say - with or without the approval of people in their marketing department in their country - from what is the truth, which lies somewhere in Japan. The official line is what is on their websites and brochures.

I have heard Yamaha reps say all sorts of things which are patently wrong to customers, like that AGs have identical key actions to Yamaha concert grands. But apparently many people believe it.

He is a full time employee of Roland and is involved not only in the demonstration of Roland products but their development too. Get your facts straight. And of course your retort slags off Yamaha and the Avant Grand - which is not even being discussed and is irrelevant. How predictable.

Ah....the old Essbrace is back!!!
How predictable - still stalking me, eh?

How about responding to the FACTS? Scott Tibbs is a Roland employee and participated in the V-Piano's development...he calls Vintage 2 a Bosendorfer. And your response is?

Calm down, dear (as the late Michael Winner would say) .
Actually, that could be my new catchphrase every time you come to 'correct' me in your usual grumpy manner in this forum - or maybe we could meet over in Pianists Corner, for a change of venue? I frequent there rather more, er, frequently.

I'll tell Scott Tibbs when I see him in the USA. I've got a trip there planned in a few months' time, doing adventurous stuff like swimming with friendly sharks, sky-diving over the desert near Las Vegas, playing baseball with friendly grizzlies in Yellowstone etc (- but you know that anyway .....don't you?)

So you don't actually have any meaningful response then about Scott Tibbs?

Here we go again. Sonny Liston and Cassius Clay are in the ring again.

So, I'll just go ahead and say it:

HITLER.

Thread closed.

guys - (I love the passion.) just remember to take your heart meds.

Could you please relocate your little petty discussion to PMs?

Oh and Mac just because you used smileys doesn't mean your reply wasn't as inappropriate as those of the previous two.

We had a lively, interesting and technical discussion about modeling v. sampling before you three came along and I'd rather it stayed that way.

I'd fancy reporting you all to the mods...

Nothing wrong with a side show from time to time. It's like the Falstaff scenes in Henry the Fourth part One. Or Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, perhaps.