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"