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"