Talk to me about virtual pianos

[eric]

I know this has been addressed in the past and I'm going to do some more searching, but it is not a recent topic.

 

I am getting more comfortable with my Macbook Pro + Logic rig and thinking about upgrading the piano sounds. I use an S90 Classic as my controller and the pianos in that beast are ok, but getting dated and come through the mix a bit on the brittle side. Was wondering what would be a good soft piano to check out? I believe Ivory is the industry standard and it appears to be about $400. Are there others worth investigating? Any better bangs for the buck or things to watch out for when diving into this territory?

 

Any comments appreciated.

 

Regards,

Eric

[Karl Sutton]

Ivory takes a lot of space (40GB) & needs to reside on its own (7200) drive for best performance - I love the way it sounds in the studio, and I would think that it would sound pretty sweet at a gig. That modart software is interesting because it models instead of playing back samples, therefore negating the need to take a drive to gigs.

 

How's the latency with mainstage on the macbook pro?

[wmp]

My experience is very limited. I've tried Ivory and I'm not impressed. It's a resource hog and their idea of DRM isn't allowd on my machines. Side by side with the PC3X (triggering Ivroy from the PC3X), I prefer the PC3X.

[Mark Schmieder]

Pianoteq all the way -- especially if you like emulating Yamaha grands. Several programmers have added some excellent Bechstein and Yamaha emulations to their presets. This is the most flexible engine out there, and keeps getting better at a rapid rate. Best of all, unlike sample libraries, you can try a demo first!

 

I have an especially challenged computer, and it runs Pianoteq fine. In real-time vs. MIDI rendering mode, I sometimes have to dumb down the sample rate or bump the latency a pip beyond my preference for near-zero latency, but this is even more the case for sample-based libraries such as Akoustik Piano.

 

Take advantage of the dollar's increasing value of late -- I think this product is still priced in euros.

[Mr. L]

If you're going the route of resource hogs, then you might as well go ALL THE WAY. Outstanding sounds, really.

 

Check out the samples here.

 

http://www.soundsonline.com/EastWest-Quantum-Leap-Pianos-pr-EW-171.html

 

 

 

FL

www.franklucas.net

[Mark Schmieder]

Ironically, their own demos don't do the best of showing them off. But maybe they've replaced them with better demos by now (I can't listen at the moment, as I'm simply on lunch break at work). I found different strengths and weaknesses in all of the "premier" sample-based piano libraries. All are excellent, but none feel as organic as Pianoteq.

 

But I do occasionally use Vienna Instruments Bosendorfer in orchestral arrangements as it tends to sit better and cut through vs. Pianoteq in such contexts.

 

The PMI Bosendorfer 290 that now ships with east/west's Goliath is really unusbable IMO, but that product is NOT the basis for the new Quantum Leap Pianos (which are MUCH better). That product may be the "best bang for buck" if you are really concerned about copying the specific timbre of well-known models vs. simply having a virtual piano that is fun, musical, and expressive in real-time playing.

 

Ivory has recently moved to an a la carte approach with their piano libraries, which means you can now buy the Fazioli on its own. They had learned a lot by then, and so the programming and depth of that library tends to be a lot better than the earlier ones. Which might not help if you're not after a Fazioli sound :-). I personally feel the Fazioli works well both for pop and classical. I haven't really tried it for jazz yet.

[Joe Muscara]

I have Ivory, I love it, and it works great on my MacBook Core Duo (note the lack of "Pro" and "2" in that description). I upgraded the internal drive a couple of months ago to a 200 GB 7200 RPM drive and moved the Ivory library there, along with a new Logic Studio install. So far so good, but I must admit to not having pushed it, just played Ivory solo.

 

As far as Pianoteq, you can download a 45 day trial from their web site. No current mega-sample library can offer you that, and you can find out if it might work for you. (I say *might* because 8 notes are disabled (silent): F#1, G#1, A#1, C#5, D#5, F#5, G#5 and A#5.)

[eric]

Thanks guys. I just downloaded the demo of Pianoteq and will give that a whirl!

 

Any others I should investigate?

 

Regards,

Eric

[mcgoo]

I have Ivory & I'm always amazed that no one else ever bitches about this... (maybe it's me?)

 

It sounds horrid in mono. No matter how I mess with the settings & fx, it always sounds phasey in mono, so if you gig in mono, keep that in mind. In stereo it is absolutely gorgeous.... presuming you have a nice sound system.

[kanker.]

I'd check out some of the PMI libraries here - http://www.sampletekk.com - particularly the Emperor and Old Lady. Great bang for the buck. I use the Emperor quite a bit and have used it on a couple of CDs

[magronbass]

No mention of the official steinway lib from Garritan?

 

http://www.garritan.com/steinway.html

 

A word on pianoteq: I'm still not sure why people can use it, since the most it seems to be able to do is to emulate one "zone" of the keyboard, even with hours and hours of tweaking. Do you run multiple instances for different zones? I really like the product and the concept, etc.. but just can't figure out how to make it sound good. And considering the amount of time I've already spent trying to tweak it to sound right, I've sort of deemed it as requiring too much effort to get anything useful out of it. Of course, it is a very promising technogy. Mark, is there a demo of a patch that you use or built, that produces believable results? Ideally, I'd find a patch that can prove that pianoteq can sound realistic, make the switch, and never look back.

[Mark Schmieder]

Speaking of "sounding horrid in mono", make sure when you try out Pianoteq to select the stereo speakers icon at the bottom of the GUI. The headphones icon will give you a HORRIBLE sound, and it's the default. The mono icon will give you a poor mono sound as well, which isn't really mono-summed. I have my notes elsewhere containing the description of how they come up with that mono channel, but mono-summing is not its purpose. It mostly narrows the stereo field, but I don't like what it does to intermodulation.

[Mark Schmieder]

"believable" is in the ear of the beholder. Every time this conversation comes up, people tend to fall into two distinct camps: those looking for the exact timbre of their favourite piano (most often a Steinway New York Model D or whatever), and those that are looking for something that sounds and behaves like "a" piano. You need sample libraries if you are in the former camp.

 

My parents have a Steinway D and a Mason & Hamlin Baby Grand. I MUCH prefer the Mason & Hamlin, for its rich harmonic texture, its incredible action, and the way the entire piano vibrates in sympathy (a unique patented bracing design), which also means the keys vibrate as you play them. Unfortunately Pianoteq can't accomplish that last little detail as it is software :-). But it comes the closest of anything I've ever used to behaving like an "idealised" piano, which is what I consider Mason & Hamlin to be.

 

I have not yet bothered to tweak Pianoteq other than for its EQ and reverb settings, and other front-panel controls. That is because from a recording point of view I've mostly been using it in pop music lately. I've done some home practice with it, for jazz and classical, and want to cry! Never have I felt more connected to a digital instrument. This is a whole different matter from tracking existing MIDI, which may need to have note lengths modified, note velocities scaled, etc. This is true any time you change a sound source for a pre-recorded MIDI track that you created on something else.

 

Don't forget the .fxp presets though, which are separate from the drop-list in the front panel. Those presets go way deeper in the parameter tweaking than the front panel presets. I haven't used them yet, because I haven't needed to. In pop music, stuff gets produced a lot, so I do it there (that is, in the mix). The next time I record piano for jazz or classical and use Pianoteq instead of Vienna Instruments Bosendorfer, chances are that I will spend some time tweaking it "in the box" so to speak, as I am religiously against "producing" classical (other than for convolution reverb and a touch of EQ).

 

I could send you a couple of files using Pianoteq, where it's in the context of a mix, but they're pop so you might not be able to judge. I could also track some older MIDI of some jazz or classical, but as it wasn't recorded using Pianoteq (because it's a few years old), I would probably need to edit the MIDI or just record it over from scratch with MIDI and audio together.

 

Dave Polich has made some patches to emulate his Yamaha grand and his Yamaha Disclavier. They're in the user section at the Modartt website. Dave is one of Yamaha's chief sound designers (he's also done work for other well-known vendors), and I've known him now for years. This is now his only piano VI for all of his work, but he has the knowledge to really dig deep on any product, without a huge amount of effort. Nevertheless, as of the most current version of Pianoteq (and if you haven't tried it recently, retry it, as each point release represents a giant leap forward), the "in the box" presets are "good enough" for most purposes without tweaking at this point.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "zones". I think of the piano as a continuum. Are you suggesting that there are breakoff points where the characteristics should change noticeably?

[magronbass]

What is Dave Polich's username? I'm not seeing his name in the forums... "ranger" perhaps? The demos for ranger.fxp are some of the better ones in the forum.. I should test out his patches using the demo.

 

Anyway, speaking just for myself, I'm not looking for a particular sound, and so that's why I'm attracted to pianoteq... just that with pianoteq demos, and even using the actual vsti demo, there are many moments where it doesn't sound like "a" piano at all. Sounds more like a cp80 or... just something else. I mean, honestly, I'm not looking for any exact matches here, but many times pianoteq doesn't sound close to any pianos I've ever heard. Perhaps I live in a strange dimension where pianos sound differently.

 

By key zones, I meant that when I tweak pianoteq to sound perfect for a certain range of keys, (like middle octave), going higher or lower than that will cause it to sound all fake again. Seems like you have to try to strike a compromise between making the lower registers or the higher registers more realistic..

 

Anyway, I guess we don't need to get into too much details here, I was just wondering if there was a holy grail of pianoteq that I've been missing out on. If there was that magical preset, then pianoteq would be the ultimate.

[NickC3]

Does anyone have an opinion on "True Pianos" by 4front? Thanks

Link: http://www.truepianos.com/index.php

[Mark Schmieder]

True Pianos is a good compromise. I tried it out and liked it, but already had Pianoteq by then. They have a demo you can try, as it combines modeling and sampling and so isn't a huge download. They've also been rapidly improving it and adding additional pianos.

 

I don't remember where Dave Polich's presets were at the Pianoteq User Area or if he had a special user name. AFAICR he only contributed the Diskclavier preset and maybe one other Yamaha one. He might have also helped on a CP70/CP80 preset as I think he was part of the team that voiced the original back in the day. I think maybe "modern-bright-studio-grand" is his, and maybe also "elton", but that's just from vague memory. I haven't really taken the time yet to try ANY of the .fxp files -- I'm hyper-focused on wind synthesis work at the moment. But it's likely I'll return to some piano tracking by this weekend.

 

I'm not sure which tweaks mess up the balance, but IMO this problem is mostly solved with the latest release (April 2008). So much improvement that I'm not bothering to fiddle much with the EQ curve at the moment. I noticed what you described, in earlier releases, but not in the latest release. And I don't think it's a fatal flaw in the core implementation, so I expect it to keep getting better.

 

Also, the Pro edition comes out sometime, for an undisclosed amount of money. It apparently opens up more of the modeling to the user, amongst other improvements.

 

I consider Pianoteq to be a technology platform at this point, and wouldn't be surprised to see it expand to include other hammer-struck and even plucked strings over time, such as hammered dulcimer, harpsichord, concert harp, certain electric pianos, etc.

[bloodyMary]

I think modelling is the way to go. These huge libraries don't sound better than tiny samples we have in our hardware. PC3X, Roland RD/FP series, all have superb pianos, and I doubdt they're over 100mb in size. Why whould want a 40Gb library which sounds onlu slightly better (or doesn't)?

I believe a skilled sound designer should be able to work with less samples. Of course, having unlooped samples of all keys in 20 velocities each, plus damped, muted, and staccato version of each sample takes up space, but somehow h/w manages to achieve not bad results with much less resources.

 

Modelling, on the other hand, is in it's cradle, and already shows great results. Many manufacturers choose hybrid route - sampled notes, but modelled resonaces, articulations, etc.

 

I see great potintial in developing modelled brass, woodwinds, horns, drums (ARX card?), pianos, Hammonds (electro!), even human voice for all kinds of aahs and oohs I use all the time.

 

Currently I use Hypersonic 2 pianos within my laptop. Not great, but I find it usable, especially considering the fact I play in a loud band, and only two songs have solo piano.

[Yoozer]

What good is excellent software if manufacturers seem to squeeze every cent out of keyboard quality?

 

Haven't felt anything yet that plays like a grand .

[wmp]

I think modelling is the way to go.

Amen!

 

After playing Ivory, I have no interest at all in the Quantum Leap pianos. Especially after reading some user feedback here not long ago. For every velocity level, every articulation, every nuance you want to capture with the uber sample approach, you have to increase the size of your behemoth by an order of magnitude. I'm sure the Quantum Leap pianos sound nice if you have the resources to waste, but I already know that I won't like playing it. The sampling approach to pianos is going to collapse under its own weight long before it comes close to something I don't have to bury in grease or a fat mix to make it taste good.

 

Try this with your grand. Open it up and holler into it. Listen to how the soundboard transmits your voice throught bridge and sets those undamped high strings into motion. Now hit the damper pedal and holler again. Big string reverb. Now grab a two fisted chord and do the same thing. Different, eh? What you get out of a note, or combination of notes depends on everything else that's going on in the piano at the moment, and the simple sampled approach prevents you from accounting for any of that. If you think this stuff is unimportant, we disagree.

 

Sampling different pianos to get different piano sounds seems very wasteful to me as well. My dream piano model would be a single model with user definable stringing scale (not to be confused with tuning scale), soundboard and case characteristics, adjustable hammer weight, density and hardness, tweakable dampers, and tweakable tuning beyond anything I've ever seen in a synth. Everything from spinets, uprights, little grands, big grands, CP70s, to invent your dream pianos all under one roof. You'd even be able to feed the model audio and have it resonate like the real deal. I think I undertand how tough this would be, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have to eat up 40 gig of hard drive.

 

I'm also pretty sure the PC3 piano samples are a heck of a lot smaller than 100 meg. I've heard folks gripe about them being the same samples as the PC2. I've played both and there's quite a difference. Sure they sound similar, but the PC3 is quite a leap from the PC2. I know the Kurzweil guys put a lot of effort into these sounds, but they've had to work on a lot of other sounds too. After reading up on this VAST stuff and comparing the PC3 to the K2600, I think there are much better pianos to be had from the PC3 using those same old samples. I think it'll take a little while before folks have time to fully explore what this new VAST engine can do. The last time I really tried to tweak piano sounds was with the Korg M1 and all I learned was that you can't polish a turd with a brick.

 

 

 

 

[yannis D]

+1 for the Pianoteq. Small and sexy

[Moonglow]

Does anyone have an opinion on "True Pianos" by 4front? Thanks

Link: http://www.truepianos.com/index.php

I thought I read in a thread a while back that Burningbusch was a fan of True Pianos. I have no experience with them (nor any other virtual piano!), but I respect his opinion immensely.

 

P.S. Where has he been?

[magronbass]

I don't see the whole point in the file size problem tho.. much better a HD requirement than a cpu or ram requirement.. though I do agree quantum leap piano and other piano libs are quite steep in terms of overall system requirements.

 

From what I've read hw manufacturers use special compression on their samples which allows them to fit quite alot. Compression meaning not like mp3 compression, but more like a custom file type I guess.

 

The recent developments in hw pianos (rd700 series, pc3) is interesting tho. Because before that, hw pianos simply got blown away in terms of velocity layers, and thus fluidity of the layer switches, etc. I mean it's hard to say that a 4 layer p250 (what I have) is a quality representation when you can buy a library with 48 samplers per note (sampletekk black grand close prespective) for only $50. Not to say that layers and amount of samples directly mean quality, but the bar is quite high these days.

 

With that in mind tho, rd700 (and all related series) and pc3 is a leap forward in hw piano because they do many things that the more advanced vsti solutions do. Like with fluid layers, resonance handling... esp I think rd700 is great for tweaking. hw also has an advantage because they can specifically create the patches to play back well on their keyboard.

 

Anyway, just to give you a collection of all libraries in one place, its:

 

more recent:

QL piano, Garritan Steinway, Galaxy II (bit hard sound I think)

 

older standards:

Ivory, NI Akoustic(raved about before, maybe not so much now)

 

less common, needs kontakt for some:

Sampletekk line (black grand, TBO, seven seas), PMI stuff (I personally don't like), ArtVista Virtual Grand (very dark), Pro Audio Vault Bluethner Digital (very good, but sounds very distinctive)

 

Modeled:

Pianoteq, Truepianos

 

Interesting thing about Garritan and QL pianos is that they use a sampler engine based on plogue bidule's, meaning they're not based on Kontakt anymore. That's sort of a new thing, and people aren't sure yet how it'll roll out. The results are good, but in terms of maintenance, version updates, etc.. But either way, regardless of how limiting the sampling technology may be, it's a big market. And where there's money, you can be sure there will be continuous development.

 

okay.. feel like i just finished a book report.. hehe.

[Dana.]

I think it's clear that one thing we all want is to be able to customize our piano sounds to suit our tastes. Obviously, this can be done to great extents with software pianos. On the hardware side, though, is Roland the only manufacturer that will allow one to adjust hammer noise and damper resonance, open and close the lid, etc.? As far as I know, this can't be done with Yamaha digital pianos. What does VAST offer in the way of customization for Kurzweil's pianos?

[Al Coda]

I think modelling is the way to go. These huge libraries don't sound better than tiny samples we have in our hardware. PC3X,...

 

... Currently I use Hypersonic 2 pianos within my laptop. Not great, but I find it usable, especially considering the fact I play in a loud band, and only two songs have solo piano.

 

Hi B.M. !

 

Interesting you´re talking about the PC3X here. Do you own one?

It´s the instrument which interests me very much and I only wait for a finished OS and software editor and until it´s available in latest versions in germany.

 

Depending on soft pianos,- I use NI Akustik Piano as well as Steinberg The Grand. IMO, pianos are a matter of taste as also a question of what you do w/ these, so I´m not surprised you´re satisfied w/ the Hypersonic pianos for some purposes.

B.t.w. I also tested Hypersonic 2 in a studio of a friend and found quite some usefull sounds, this also in other instruments categorys. I think, if someone want´s to do a quick and usefull playback or some music for film background (commercials, jingles and such) and don´t likes to fiddling around w/ long loading times, Hypersonic is one way to go. I also think it´s good for life performances in a band ´cause it´s only one application instead running several ones. The disadvantage is, it´s discontinued and will not be updated in future.

 

I also checked the additional librarys for PPH Reason 4- Reason Pianos ReFill is quite good IMO as also the specialized pianos of Reason Abbey Road Keyboards ReFill.

What impresses me w/ the Refills in general is, these take only the half of diskspace because of their dataformat and compared to other large librarys.

 

The very hi-end piano libraries are neccessary only for upfront solo piano work, classical stuff and maybe in a jazz trio.

 

A.C.

[C.J. Lewis]

Thanks guys. I just downloaded the demo of Pianoteq and will give that a whirl!

 

Any others I should investigate?

 

Regards,

Eric

 

Eric, I'd try out TruePianos ... I use it on my live rig when I only have my MBP, and whatever keyboard may be put in front of me.

[eric]

Just downloaded True Pianos and I'm impressed right out of the box with the demo. It has a fairly polished edge that seems immediately useful for pop piano. Sounds like a nice Yamaha piano.

 

The PianoTeq is pretty cool also, particularly its dynamics, but I have not dialed in a great sound from just the demo. I actually found layering PianoTeq and True Piano together was interesting.

 

Now I just need to decide if I want to buy the full version of either!

 

Thanks for the tips! Keep 'em coming.

[Megakazbek]

I don't really understand all the hype about Pianoteq. Demo version sounds more like an FM synth to me or something like that, not like a real piano at all. I've been able to get some nice EP-ish tones out of it, but nothing close to piano.

On the other hand, TruePianos is really good, especially with the latest update. But still, it doesn't come close to Ivory which is IMO clearly superior even to any other multi-GB library I've heard.

[Al Coda]

I don't really understand all the hype about Pianoteq. Demo version sounds more like an FM synth to me or something like that, not like a real piano at all. I've been able to get some nice EP-ish tones out of it, but nothing close to piano.

On the other hand, TruePianos is really good, especially with the latest update. But still, it doesn't come close to Ivory which is IMO clearly superior even to any other multi-GB library I've heard.

 

Hi !

 

Yes, that´s exactly my impression too. It doesn´t sound as nearly as good as all my other piano-emulations do.

 

A.C.

[ErikH]

I think it's clear that one thing we all want is to be able to customize our piano sounds to suit our tastes. Obviously, this can be done to great extents with software pianos. On the hardware side, though, is Roland the only manufacturer that will allow one to adjust hammer noise and damper resonance, open and close the lid, etc.? As far as I know, this can't be done with Yamaha digital pianos. What does VAST offer in the way of customization for Kurzweil's pianos?

My PC3x does not have any particular adjustments which are keyed to "open lid" or anything like that.

 

But as for what vast offers in the way of customization... well, almost anything, if you want to program it. Which I don't, incidentally, as I like the Kurz pianos that are already on there.

[Aidan]

Eric, I have the Art Vista piano and while it sounds very good, it's quite demanding of space and I find the Kontakt interface fiddly, as is the heirarchy of the install structure. Tried Modartt and not particularly impressed, but TruePianos looks pretty good and at 90 quid I might be tempted!