Originally posted by propianist:


I actually have been reading that thread, but just haven't posted any comment myself.

I already got into a long discussion about Pianoteq on this thread a short while back.

I haven't bought Pianoteq, but I have downloaded demo versions of it, including the latest v2.3 demo and played the Erard preset that you're talking about. However, I find it's timbre rather too metallic and clangy in the midrange and treble. The Erard's bass notes sound okay, but IMHO as a complete instrument (despite Pianoteq's otherwise impressive playability factor and realistic resonance simulations) the overall raw tone is not up to scratch for me.

You are correct to conclude that Pianoteq can render ppp levels with more subtle dynamic variations than Ivory, but quite frankly, if I was submitting some showcase demo tracks of my playing to a professional booking agent, I'd rather use Ivory (for example) than Pianoteq, because it just sounds far more like a recording of the real thing, and makes a better first impression with most listener's expectations.
(Although of course, I would obviously always try to use a live or studio recording of myself playing a real piano, in preference, before resorting to any software alternatives!)

The most interesting part of that thread is your assertion that a pianist's hands-on experience is the real litmus test for software piano quality, and that alone puts Pianoteq Erard (in your opinion) at the top ranking of available choices. Other software pianos that don't "feel" or "react" as well are less highly ranked by you, and you regard the third party listener's experience as maybe only second priority, and therefore less influential in your ranking. You say the piano (Erard) is meant to be played rather than listened to. I know what you mean - like a car that is a joy to drive even though it can't compete on paper with a different model. I know there is more to your philosophy than just this summary (I have read all you wrote on that thread and I understand it entirely, plus the negative arguements of others too) but basically, you're saying Pianoteq Erard "rules them all" because you get back from it the musical intentions that you put into it, and it acomplishes this feat better than Ivory or others you've tried in comparison.

Now, here's my thoughts on this approach...

I've been down this slippery road myself, becoming glued to a certain piano patch for specific reasons (areas where I felt it had winning advantages), and I was therefore reluctant to accept its shortcomings in other (sonic) areas. It's easy to get blinkered, and to turn a blind eye to the tone if you're enjoying the way that tone responds, but when you stack your favourite piano up against a LOT of others, eventually you realise some other pianos do sound way better (in different areas) - enough to make you realise you haven't got the best piano sound you could have, even though it is very strong in some areas.

It's a bit like "X Factor" or "American Idol" - people go on to sing and they're crap, but in their own mind they can't hear that because they are so used to their own voice, but Simon Cowell (and TV audience) hears it easily because he is objective due to not being biased or blinkered by hearing one voice all the time.

The more you play one favourite piano (all the time) the more you blank out regular comparisons with other pianos, and even blank out minor faults which should be quite obvious! To stay on your toes and never lose your objectivity, you must always compare pianos and constantly re-asses your bias and your prejudice towards those favourite opinions you hold dear.
If Pianoteq Erard satisfies your need for ppp levels and playability, that's great, but the search is not over. What you have found is not the best ultimate piano, per se, but the best new reference yardstick for assessing ppp levels and playability amongst other software pianos.
Treat Pianoteq as your benchmark for playability, and Ivory as your benchmark for sample quality, and carefully compare them both if you ever try Galaxy II (very good) or Garritan Steinway (disappointing) or EWQL or BDMO or Akoustik or Pianoid or VSL Bosendorfer or Sampleteq Black Grand or various others....! You can't say one piano "rules them all" unless you've actually tried them all, and eventually you'll no doubt discover something else, like Galaxy II Steinway, can offer you maybe 90 percent of the ppp level refinement of Pianoteq, with 80% of the SSR and pedal resonance behaviour, but with 300% of the concert grand authenticity and 400% of the positive reactions from people who listen to your recordings!
You then might be glady willing to trade off a little playability for a lot more tone quality, and you might come to see the Erard tone in a different light once you have.
[/b]

Originally posted by ere:[/b]
I have never asked you, and never saw your post where you'd say what piano you play for yourself at home? (Acoustic i presume). I don't think you'd be the kind of person who would argue in favour of playing a hypothetical very much Steinway-like sounding digital (say with Ivory's shortcomings)instead of playing a "no name" upright with ok'ish action. How does no name upright compare to steinway in terms of sound? I'm sure its midrange could well be "too metallic and clangy" , BUT! - it is (like steinway) a PIANO, proper piano, an artistic instrument. Pianoteq, maybe like a "no name" upright (although I've certainly played several uprights that were sounding MUCH worse) does not come even close in approaching the rich amazing sound of an acoustic Steinway concert grand (or a Yamaha acoustic upright even;)... BUT, like a no name acoustic upright, it- pianoteq- is TOO a piano!!