Well I find the models on csound are much more powerful than anything I've found in the vst or hardware synth worlds, even though its still a model things like the waveguide flute or bowed strings are extremely fun, if not a replacement for the real thing. On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Art Hunkins wrote: > Well spoken, Michael. > > Art Hunkins > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gogins" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:55 PM > Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Modeled piano- Pianoteq > > > I wish it were that simple. >> >> The human ear, in the range of frequencies that we use in music, is as >> good or better than the very best microphones. Simply put, we hear about >> half the information that is physically present in the signal. That's the >> best physical performance of any of our senses. For example, with night >> adapted vision, in the dark we can see almost every photon that strikes the >> retina, but film or a sensor can do the same, and we can't resolve the >> photons spatially nearly as well as a modest lens -- or even a hawk, for >> that matter. >> >> What this means is that if there is ANY flaw in the musical signal, a >> person with educated ears or musical experience is going to hear it -- and >> right away. >> >> And THAT means, even the best recording is never going to sound quite like >> the real thing. >> >> The physical models, inevitably, make simplifying assumptions. That means >> that they are NEVER EVER going to sound just like even a... recording... of >> the real thing. Never mind the real thing itself. The models will ALWAYS be >> at least two steps removed from the real thing. >> >> However, you are totally right about the tweakability. So, in my >> experience, even though the models can't sound REAL, they can actually be >> MORE USEFUL in certain musical textures because, with the tweaking, you can >> get the frequency balances to sit in the mix better, you can get the >> spectrum to be more useful for your purposes, you can get the attacks to be >> the right lengths for your rhythms, and so on and so on. In short... with >> models you can COMPOSE more. >> >> Of course, in the future, the two steps removed will get smaller and >> smaller, and a skillful composer may be able to get us to forget about them >> for a time. But they are never going to go away entirely. >> >> Hope this clarifies things a bit, >> Mike >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Redfern >> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk >> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:37 PM >> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Modeled piano- Pianoteq >> >> >> What I like is that pianoteq is more "tweakable," models are the future >> anyways, any problem with its sound could be addressed by future versions, >> since its just math, but with samples what you have is literally "set in >> stone." >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Michael Gogins >> wrote: >> >> I found that by playing with the Pianoteq's resonance, high-frequency >> cutoff, and Q, I could get a sweeter, more ringing sound, more like the good >> SoundFonts. >> >> Still not as much like a real piano as the good SoundFonts. >> >> I know from doing this kind of work that with endless tweaking, and >> circling around different use cases and sets of parameters, you can usually >> get something quite a bit more usable. >> >> Of course that should apply both to the Pianoteq and to the sampled >> pianos.... >> >> Regards, >> Mike >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Brian Redfern >>> Sent: Aug 19, 2008 8:08 PM >>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk >>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Modeled piano- Pianoteq >>> >>> The sampled piano on my Oasys kills the pianoteq, but at the same time, i >>> can't load scala files into the oasys and I can't do really weird stuff >>> with >>> it, the modelling aspect of pianoteq works great for really strange >>> tweaked >>> piano sounds. >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Michael Gogins >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for your very interesting post on this very important topic. >>>> >>>> I tried the experiment you recommend just now, with J.S. Bach BMV 533, >>>> an >>>> organ piece with a lot of range and a lot of stuff including block >>>> triads in >>>> it, the Pianoteq, and the sfz freeware Sound Font 2 plugin with the free >>>> Piano Steinway Grand Model C (21,738KB).sf2 SoundFont in Cubase 4. >>>> >>>> In short, I find both pianos quite usable, but I still slightly prefer >>>> the >>>> Pianoteq. >>>> >>>> Some additional comments.... >>>> >>>> With the Pianoteq, I can indeed hear the beating you describe. For me, >>>> in >>>> the passage work and in melodies that I played or that were sequenced, >>>> it is >>>> not objectionable. Also, I could reduce the beating to almost nothing by >>>> increasing the octave stretch, or by using well temperament instead of >>>> equal >>>> temperament. I suspect that in any given key, you can do something to >>>> eliminate all the beating completely. >>>> >>>> The Pianoteq has a more even range, no recording artifacts (of course), >>>> and >>>> is in better tune (in spite of the beats). >>>> >>>> Any given note on the SoundFont definitely sounds more like a piano, >>>> because of course it is a recording of one, but the unified effect is >>>> more >>>> jarring to my ears, because of recording artifacts, uneven range, and so >>>> on. >>>> >>>> But I tried several free SoundFont pianos, and they were each quite >>>> different, so I suspect a commercial sampled piano could be better -- >>>> perhaps quite a bit better. >>>> >>>> I think for some textures, I would use the SoundFont for its sweeter, >>>> more >>>> piano-like sound, but for most textures where the behavior of the >>>> instrument >>>> is important, I would use the Pianoteq. >>>> >>>> In sum, for me the Pianoteq paints a more unified picture of a >>>> piano-like >>>> sound, even if the sound is not quite as much like a piano. And, of >>>> course, >>>> it BEHAVES a lot more like a piano than the SoundFonts do. >>>> >>>> Finally, I use these instruments in ways that most composers for the >>>> piano >>>> do not. I use thicker textures, more notes, more rapid notes, more >>>> precise >>>> timing, and so on. In these contexts, the more tractable behavior of the >>>> Pianoteq is more useful -- until it completely runs out of notes! This >>>> is >>>> something that the SoundFonts just don't do, since they don't eat >>>> computer >>>> power the way the Pianoteq does. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >From: Michael Mossey >>>> >Sent: Aug 19, 2008 6:15 PM >>>> >To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk >>>> >Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Modeled piano- Pianoteq >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Michael Gogins wrote: >>>> >> I have used, and continue to use, the Pianoteq quite frequently. In >>>> >> my view it is not the only piano plugin one might want to use, but >>>> >> for me at any rate, it is certainly the most useful. The big chords >>>> >> are not as convincing as a sampled piano, but everything else is more >>>> >> convincing. >>>> > >>>> >I guess I'm the only one then. I played with it some more---tried >>>> >different stretch tuning, etc. The intervals are just harsh and >>>> >artificial sounding.. they have very odd-sounding beats. Michael, have >>>> >you tried playing a simple triad on Pianoteq vs. a sampled piano? Have >>>> >you tried sequencing a Bach choral, in slow motion, so you can savor >>>> >the >>>> >harmonies? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >I agree that individual notes are fantastic. A single melodic line >>>> >WOULD >>>> >be great, except I can't get past the beats that take place in the >>>> >release sound and in the ambiance. A single melodic line is often >>>> >filled >>>> >with major and minor seconds, which are the hardest intervals for me to >>>> >accept on the Pianoteq. >>>> > >>>> >Best, >>>> >Mike >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Send bugs reports to this list. >>>> >To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body >>>> >"unsubscribe >>>> csound" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Send bugs reports to this list. >>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body >>>> "unsubscribe >>>> csound" >>>> >>>> >>> Send bugs reports to this list. >>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe >>> csound" >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Send bugs reports to this list. >> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe >> csound" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Send bugs reports to this list. >> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe >> csound" >> > > > > Send bugs reports to this list. > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe > csound" >