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"

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.
> 

I wish Moddart would figure out why their models gives the harsh beats 
in the first place and fix that. Maybe they need to introduce some 
random phase shifting.

By the way, my complaint mainly came from the result of myself playing 
through some Bach chorales at the midi keyboard, which is one thing I 
use a sampled/modeled piano for. I listened to more complex music 
sequenced on the Pianoteq, and it's less obvious then.

Mike