Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards EWQL Pianos vs. Galaxy II vs. Authorized Steinway

oops, decided that my answer was sligtly off topic (i talked about pianoteq mostly)and waranted its own thread....
Seee here http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/6/5320.html

Ivory has up to 10 velocity layers.? yea and LOL!!!!
10???
ilok is easy just shove it into a usb slot (mine has about 12 usb2 slots)
then download the drivers and then the Sample Library you are installing will have a key to install on the ilok.
I just installed a ton of PLAY libs but not the piano lib yet I have test it out the demos aren't doing it for me.
I really want to test out Galaxy II all the tweaking you can do is a big plus!!

Care to enlighten me as to what's so amusing?

no that's ok. I bought EW new piano lib instead of anything else. If you go from playing pro classical, jazz, etc on a real piano to a Sample lib that only gives you 10 velocity layers your no way in heck going to be able to play the same.
see ya

You bought East West Quantum Leap Pianos? How do you rate it so far?
EWQL just got a thorough review in Sound On Sound magazine (Oct 2008 edition) here in England.

I own Ivory Grand Pianos (10 layer Bosendofer & Steinway, but only 8 layers for Yamaha) and I also have Ivory Italian Grand which actually has 12 velocity layers.
I think Ivory doesn't do ppp soft levels very well, they're a bit too bright sounding, but it's overall playability and smooth mapping is generally good. I'm hearing some hiss on the Yamaha samples though.

I'm gonna post some comparison demos on here soon, with all these interesting pianos side by side.

10 layers refers to the number of actual samples being taken. I'm pretty sure they are then further interpolated to fill in missing resolution steps on the velocity curve.

Eternal,

I'm not so sure. I feel that increasing Ivory's dynamic range (from default 30db to maximum 60db (same as pianoteq's default)) does not improve its playability (theoretically it should ). If anything it feels even more step like, but certainly not less then usual.
I think Yamaha and Roland interpolate and fill the missing steps, but I don't think Ivory bothered. Unless there is something wrong with my keyboard config, because Ivory makes a sound even at the lightest press of the key (it shouldn't produce sound at all and doesnt on roland/yamaha's inbuilt soft). This same identical sound is repeated for slightly harder key press (approximately the lightest touch that inbuilt soft responds to).

So i don't know about other sample libraries, but Ivory I am quite sure gave us just the pure recorded samples. All 10 of them per note:)

Ivory does feature, according to their website ...

"Proprietary Timbre Interpolation technology for ultra smooth velocity and note transitions.
Use of proprietary Timbre Interpolation technology assures the smoothest velocity and note transitions for each of the pianos, achieving a level of musical playability that is unparalleled."

Propianist,
Does it mean there is something wrong with my setup? Lets say I wanted to play 4 pianissimo cords, but each ever so slighly different from another (eg pp, ppp, pppp, ppp). On pianoteq its is easy and natural, on ivory i get 4 identical chords - not just in texture, but in volume! So frustrating:(
Also the key makes a sound even at the very lightest, slowest press (that doesn't make a sound in other programs)...
I've followed your (brilliant) Ivory setup guide to the letter, but do I get different results to what I should?

For what its worth, I have found the Ivory Steinway to be very dynamically expressive, but the Italian Grand not as much. The Italian Grand has a timbral sameness to the velocity layers and is not as playable. The Ivory Steinway brightens considerably between velocity layers, and I personally find it very expressive.

I just bought and installed Galaxy II yesterday. It is very promising. The Galaxy Steinway is closer mic'd than the Ivory Steinway, but there is a lot of timbral movement between velocity layers, which makes it very expressive. I am playing around w/propianist's settings.

Propianist, if you have other Steinway settings or Bosendorfer settings to try in Kontact 2, it would be much appreciated ;-)

I agree wholeheartedly. The Yamaha & Bosendorfer aren't like this, though. But the Steinway sings.

Hi 7notemode,

Now you have Galaxy II installed, you could download this update patch from the manufacturer\'s website to get the new continuously variable Sympathetic String Resonance control knob, otherwise it's just an ON/OFF button. It adds some other new features as well. I kept the original patches and copied the updated patches into the Galaxy II preset folders as well, so I've got both sets still available, but I always load the new updated patches...

I basically started with the factory presets and tweaked them to taste while listening. I have no magic formula for this and my settings are in a state of constant flux anyway as I keep fiddling with them!

On headphones, I prefer the slightly reduced stereo width, as I find extreme stereo width sounds unnatural for realistic piano, but when rendering the track, I would keep the full 100% default stereo width, to give me the best channel separation which is useful for later mix production and mastering. (eg. Adding quality true stereo reverb needs discrete L/R source channels, rather than a mono or narrow source! Thus I can generate the wet reverb using the full L/R width piano render, and can easily just pan the dry piano tracks a bit narrower in the mix if I want to, balanced with other instruments and voices, keeping my options open.)

The most important setting to get right is the velocity curve from your keyboard, otherwise all the settings will be miscalibrated. Anyway, just for you, here's what I'm using these days for Best Service Galaxy II...

Have a look 'ere....

Comparisons of ppp samples in Ivory vs BDMO showing that Ivory sounds too bright at ppp

There's some other interesting mp3 comparison demos on that website, but overall I don't like the "barking" tone of the BDMO that much either...

I think you could try making an experimental MIDI file with velocities step-edit programmed to be 000, 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, etc... and render it through Ivory to double check how exactly it does behave. Then fiddle with Ivory's Velocity Curves and Timbre controls (lid closed about -33 / lid open about +50. Default +99 is rather bright anyway!), if it's just too loud, try increasing the dynamic range (40dB is about right) to soften the softs even further.
Listen at an appropriate SPL volume, otherwise Fletcher-Munson effects mess up your perception of how it sounds anyway.

Try playing your keyboard and record the MIDI output and analyse what is actually coming out of your keyboard, or look at Pianoteq's excellent realtime velocity graph with the red lines that pop up for each note. Maybe your keyboard velocity curve needs tweaking a bit.

Try loading Ivory Level II Keyset samples (supposed to be more expressive for softer dynamics) and make sure you load the max 10 layer multisamples. (Obviously not the 8, 6 or 4 layer ones, since they'll sound worse!)

This is actually a great idea.

Thanks Propianist. I will try out your patches this weekend. I tweaked your previously posted steinway setting to fit my playback system (using external monitors). I found your settings to be a much better starting point than the factory presets. I look forward to trying the Bose and Bluthner.

Recording dry tracks at max stereo separation is a helpful point, as I will need to get some tracks mastered in the near future, and I wasn't sure the best way to present them. Dry and max stereo separation sounds like a good place to start.

The velocity curve has been fairly easy to tweak. It is very flexible.

Thanks again for sharing.

Beware on Galaxy II, the default 100% normal stereo position is 0 (Zero) in the middle, and the control goes from -99 (mono) through to +99 (pseudo 3D wide stereo effect) which you definitely wouldn't want...!

So the normal operation range is start at zero and reduce a little bit into the negative area to maybe -20 or -30 to narrow the stereo L/R pan a bit to suit your tastes, and the appropriate playback loudspeakers, headphones or PA system, etc.

Propianist,
I have followed your advice, but still got pianoteq to be vastly superior to Ivory. Could you have a look in my deemed to be politically incorrect "one soft piano to rule them all" thread (page 2)? I posted two short clips of a single MIDI file being rendered by pianotq and ivory- the difference is as clear as it is massive.

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.

Propianist,
Many thanks for your detailed reply! Great stuff!

I will try Galaxy 2 as soon as possible, maybe borrow it from a friend who I know has it. I'm intrigued to say the least, thank you for your well reasoned and detailed recommendation.

Why did i name ptq as "one to rule them all"?.. I did expect a little bit of controversy, but I hate to take a position of a "on the one hand, on the other hand; everything's relative, etc", I much prefer to argue for one point, one outcome:) Based on the balance of things.

As for the "all" word justification - I have heard from various sources that Ivory Italian grand is "as good as it gets for sample libraries right now", I certainly felt that it was representative of the best sample library approach has to offer. Now, that I have read your opinion on Galaxy2, I am a bit more reserved about it:) (I will HAVE to try it).

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 dont 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'eish 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.

I dont feel that ivory lacks in rendering ppp, I think it lacks in responding to artistic touch in ALL dynamic spectrums. Four repeated chords at ppp, or at mf, or forte - I feel that it doesn't react to small variations in touch , and thus does not give small variations in sound - and these nuances (I feel) make or brake musical interpretation, make or brake MUSIC.

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!!

What is Ivory? A glorified, elaborate typing machine. Where one types music.

Booking agents? I'm sure music connoisseurs MUST be more impressed if one played four chords at the end of a Chopin's nocturne with a well thought out and executed smorzando (even if it was a no name acoustic recording), then with someone who hammers out four identical chords on a rich sounding grand.

And even if I was comparing just the sound... Yes, pianoteq can sound artificial. But, yes, Ivory's sustain resonance sounds like some stupid echo. I'd take occasional artificiality (for the most part ptq sounds like a pretty real no name upright) over constant unrealistic resonance...

SO:) I guess, "rule them ALL" maybe an overstatement (hey, there was a winking smiley at the title), but ... maybe it wasn't We'll see with galaxy.

PS When deciding on the best to buy, we consider the value for money too. Sample libraries= finished product that will only grate on ones ears more with time. Ptq has come leaps and bounds in the past 2 years to arrive at v 2.3 Erard. What will it be in another 2 years of free upgrades? Im looking forward to galaxy, but Pianoteq has a strong case to be under the heading of my thread.

PPS Sorry if I overlooked some of your other arguments, I'm not feeling too well (flu) and having trouble concentrating.

Propianist, you mention "various hardware digital piano sources".

Had you a chance to compare all those software/hardware pianos with GEM Drake (Promega 3 / PRP 800/ RP-X etc.) Steinway and Fazioli (pianos 1 and 2)?

Even though this GEM sound is several years old now, it may well be that still nothing comes close to its beauty, realism, expressiveness and playability. And, of course, it has sympathetic string resonance, and it does not have distinctive velocity layers - any intermediate velocity is generated from the two extremes, not just mixing them, but using some complicated way to model the sound, each main harmonic generated separately, etc.

I have a much older GEM instrument, and even it has string resonance, sounds great over the phones, and is such a relief after trying Ivory, or EWQL (and I tried), not to mention Pianoteq.
TruePianos sounds much better than Pianoteq, it is almost usable, but, unfortunately, also does not have string resonance, even though there is a checkbox to switch it on, perhaps for future versions?
Galaxy II might be interesting, though - it sounds great on youtube, but, on the other hand, everything sounds great what 7notemode puts there .

Anyway, I have finally ordered the GEM RP-X piano module (a 2.5 kg box) directly from Italy.
It costs 450 euros there, so more than Garritan Steinway. I hope I will not be disappointed.

My old GEM RPStudio is still probably my favorite non-acustic piano, but I would like more dynamic range, and its sound, although very nice, is a bit generic, both ends are so beautiful but the midrange is somewhat plain, and the lower midrange has some unpleasant harsh overtones at the highest velocities. But it sounds so natural over the phones, when conneected directly to it.
I cannot produce anything even close over the phones from any of the software pianos, no matter what reverbs or stereo width, etc. RPStudio has a perfect player's perspective over the phones. As if there were no phones at all, just a real instrument in front of you.

I hope for something similar from RP-X as well, I had no chance to test it, but feedback from people who have it is usually the same: it is everything I hoped for and more ...