Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Garritan CFX vs VI Ravenscroft?

Before making these recordings with the CFX, what other digital pianos and VSTi have you tried? The perennials on this board seem to be Galaxy Vintage D and Ivory II for classical music. VI labs is also quite well regarded.

My upgrade path (over many years) has been PMI Old Lady ->Ivory -> Ivory II -> Garritan CFX.

The Garritan is the first that I've felt comfortable making performance videos with.

As a point of comparison, you can hear audio recordings I've made with the Ivory II here:

http://insidemusicteaching.com/repertoire-browser/

With the exception of "Overture", all recordings there were made using the Ivory II.

Controller-wise, the Avant Grand N3 has also been the first midi controller I've ever used that does everything I ask of it—the action is peerless among digital pianos.

Philip, may I ask which controller(s) you were using prior to the AvantGrand?

Kind regards,
James
x

Thank you Philip for your links!
Garritan should pay you for that My God, what a pianist you are, also your own pieces on the website are very nice. I wanted to make a sample as well, but after seeing yours...
I don't have the Ravenscroft, but i think i found my sound with the CFX! Its playability is the best among all digital pianos and sample libraries i came across. My favorite patch is Goldberg 1981, with slightly changed curve.
I know it's lacking advance pedalling. But sound always comes over anything. I haven't played anything like the Garritan yet.
BTW my 'upgrade path' (on sample libraries side) looks bit like this:
Galaxy II OEM-> Imperfect Fazioli-> Galaxy D-> CFX. I also tried the Ivory II, didn't really like it.

Phillip, great recordings! What samples were you using for overture?

Do you own the Garritan CFX? Can you elaborate on this comment about playability? I currently use the Ivory II ACD and have some issues with playability (if we mean the same thing).

When I play on my Roland without using the software I get a much more responsive experience. As an example, I can play more relaxed and I can play fast passages easier. I don't know if it's latency or something else but I actually feel like the VST is more difficult to play. When I practice I just use the DP and then have to calibrate my playing to record on the VST (because I do like the sound better). Do you think the Garritan CFX does better with this or has playability more like Pianoteq? (At least from what I've heard)

Here is a recent recording using the Ivory. Keep in mind I don't have Philip's pianism and I'm not very savvy with the software:

https://app.box.com/s/yi7pl64zm979gcsq1li9jc0cntbugq09

As usual my settings are experimental. I haven't settled on anything for the last several months since I got the VST.

Just yesterday I played the same piece on a Baldwin upright acoustic and I have the same pleasant experience with no tension in my playing. If I can't correct this issue with the Ivory it will definitely limit how much I use it.

I'm not really into piano VST stuff anymore, and only occasional actual piano playing, but I have yet to see a fair head to head between the CFX and the Ravenscroft. Even the Ultimate Piano Shootout over at Gearslutz isn't a fair comparison.

Ravenscroft apparently plays like a dream, beautiful touch response, so they say. Ravenscroft more up front and in your face, whereas CFX sounds a little distant, even with the "close" setting.

If someone could get the reverb settings (ambience) identical, and then do a head to head, well that would be fair.

Hi Pathbreaker,
Yes i own the Garritan CFX.

I really love it not only because of the gorgeous sound of the CFX, and the recording mics the boys at Abbey used, but also because it really translates my piano playing really well.
It's one of the reason why i love my Piano Module GEM RP-X because it just sounds the way i want it, and i have complete control of its dynamics. But the Fazioli in the GEM RP-X sounds very metally, it doesnt work in certain songs.
The CFX on the other hand is a true cameleon, it can sound like a Steinway or Yamaha.

I really wanted to like Pianoteq, since they got alot better. But to my ears it still sounds so fake. Especially in the higher register. It bothers me so much, that i won't even use it in a band mix.

FSCotte,
yes, alot of the patches in CFX has alot of Reverb in it, which is just the sound of Studio One in Abbey. However, some of those patches, like the Goldberg 1981, only use the close mics, and it sounds fairly dry.

I think i will still get the Ravenscroft someday if i have the money. It has a different sound, which fits to Jazz perfectly. And for some recordings, where advance pedalling could be obvious, i could need the Ravenscroft. But for my music, which differs from Classic, to Rock, Pop and Funk, the CFX is just perfect.

Philip_Johnston or yonatan: What do you think of the fact that repedaling is not supported?
Do you mis it? Can you hear it?

Does anyone know if Garritan will really update the CFX and fix the repedaling problem? They really should, if they want to become reliable again (they screwed up with the Garritan Steinway).
I would love to play the CFX with my N3 - just like Philip - but right now the lack of repedaling stops me from buying it.

I think of it this way: every piano I have every played—acoustic or VI—has its own quirks that require rethinks in how you play to make the most of the instrument. The lack of half pedal and repedalling (Garritan, seriously...why???) means that you will sometimes have to come up with creative ways to pedal; for me, it's perhaps only 5% of the time, depending on repertoire. It's not mattering too much while I'm working my way through the Rachmaninoff etudes and preludes; I think that Debussy would be very challenging though.

Pedalling issues is an example of a good problem to have though, because a rethink means that you can usually find a way around it. If your problem instead is that you just don't like how a library sounds—say you think the mid register is just thin and too crystalline to be believable—then there's not much you can do.

So my questions for assessing the viability of a sound library:

1) What do I like about this library?
2) What do I not like, but could play creatively to mitigate?
3) What do I not like, and am stuck with?

I'm prepared to do the extra practice required to satisfy issues raised by question 2 if the answers to question 1 excite me enough. I love the growl (it's not a plastic impossibly "clean" sound), scalability and authority of the Garritan sound enough to forgive the pedalling quirks.

But yes, they're very welcome to release a patch any time they like to fix those quirks (Just don't break what's already there please)

The Youtube version (the excerpt) uses the Garritan CFX; the complete version of Overture (the one at insidemusicteaching.com) was recorded acoustically in a studio (Steinway D).

I think Philip's answer is spot on. Like i said the sound and playability go over anything else. The lack of advance pedalling is noticable in particular songs, like Jazz ballads and such. But still the CFX just sounds perfect for me, and it inspires my playing which is great.
Let's take for example the Vintage D. Lot of people like it, it has all the features possible incl. half pedal. But i just don't like its sound, and it just never connects to me. All the features won't help then.
I hope that helps.

Thanks a lot for your reply Philip_Johnston & Yonatan!
My style of playing piano requires lots of repadeling to get the nuances I really like. So personally I think its wise to wait until they actually release a fix.

Thank you so much Philip, I can't believe my ears! I thought it was going to take lots of years before doing something better than Galaxy Vintage D. But I heard carefully the Garritan CFX, and it definetely raised the bar, I never heard something so perfect. You can fool me anytime into believing it is a real acoustic grand. I have no idea how they managed to achieve such great results, maybe better microphones? At this point, repedalling is so secondary, the sound quality is what really matters.
By the way, when you listen to it through the speakers, do you notice a big difference compared to headphones? A bit of difference it's inevitable, but how much?

Exactly the reason why I consider buying the Garritan CFX! I've used the Vintage D in the past and I'm currently using Ivory II AMD.
The AMD is the best I know. However, the CFX really sounds like the next step... if they just fix this little problem

That kind of playing really needs to be used to demo more than than just one the latest VST fads. I'd really like to hear you play the same thing with the Ravenscroft, same ambience, etc.. I'll send you $10 via Paypal. If we can get 40 others to do the same your set. It would do all of us some good to get a decent comparison for a change.

What was (is) the Garritan Steinway screw up ?
I think they went through a takeover/merger by Musitek (the score scanning people) a couple of years ago - was this when the Garritan Steinway was "nearly finished" ? - and did it get abandoned/shelved by the new management ?
I suppose the CFX would have been at least in progress at that time, so maybe it too won't get "finished" or enhanced any further.
Just speculating...

The Garritan Steinway needed half pedaling "improvements" that were promised too for version 1.05, back in January 2010. Then 1.05 was "nearing release" in Jan 2011. Then they promised to "post it soon" after announcing the update was finished in June 2012. Then in August 2012 they again said it would be released. Then again in Sept 2012. Then in Nov 2012 "it will be out, asap". Then in Dec 2012 "it is still in the works". Then in Feb 2013 "for now this is still held up". And then finally they released the CFX and we've never heard of the 1.05 update again.

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum...steinway/authorized-steinway-discussion/

Does anyone knows if the Garritan CFX needs iLok - just like Ivory - or something similar?

iLok is not needed for Garritan CFX