# What is your favorite Piano Kontakt Library?



## owenave (Mar 15, 2016)

I am sorry if this has been discussed earlier in this forum.
What is your favorite Piano Library for Kontakt?
I need one that is good for Rock, Pop, Jazz & Classical.
Something that is full but also bright and not dull sounding.
Any suggestions and why you prefer it?
Or do you use more than one piano library?

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
Larry


----------



## chillbot (Mar 15, 2016)

Ivory for just about everything.

Emotional Piano as needed.

Occasionally HZ Piano, Alicia's Keys. Not as much.

I did a comparison of 8 pianos on here a few months ago... it's in a jazz context but you might get something out of hearing them anyway. Search for "stupid piano game" I think it will come up.


----------



## AmbientMile (Mar 15, 2016)

Kind of a loaded question, but I'll bite . Of the libraries I own, my favorite that works about anywhere is the White Grand from Sampletekk. You can see it here. I also agree with chillbot on Alicia's Keys. For moody stuff I like the Spitfire Felt Piano.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 15, 2016)

I use approximately 8 piano libraries. My favorite "I want it to sound like a piano" piano is Art Vista's VG-2.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2016)

NYC Composer said:


> I use approximately 8 piano libraries. My favorite "I want it to sound like a piano" piano is Art Vista's VG-2.



I too use lots, including the Play based QL Pianos, ArtVista Maljmso, and Sampletekk BluGrand. If I had to pick one for work where it needs to stand out, probably my choice to. For sitting in a track, however it is the Sampletekk Seven Seas Grand.

That said, at NAMM I listened to the Chocolate Audio pianos and was very impressed.


----------



## milesito (Mar 15, 2016)

#1 Art Vista's VG-2 which I just updated to. It's a worthwhile update to the Maljmso. Next is Alicia Keys for me (which always sounds pretty good) and then addictive keys if I want it to sit back in the mix or have a lot of control over the sound. QL pianos to me sounds great as well. All have different sounds of course.


----------



## owenave (Mar 15, 2016)

Thanks for replys I will be doing research on all of these suggestions.
and @chillbot I will also give a look for that comparison you did. 
Thanks all.


----------



## Jediwario1 (Mar 15, 2016)

I really enjoy "The Grandeur" by Native Instruments. It doesn't have heaps of character like other libraries (Imperfect Samples). But it's really even and consistent, because of that it's my go to for when I'm just improvising and tinkering on my keyboard.


----------



## kunst91 (Mar 15, 2016)

Malmsjö4lyfe


----------



## BradHoyt (Mar 15, 2016)

chillbot said:


> Ivory for just about everything.
> 
> Emotional Piano as needed.
> 
> ...



I came to the exact same conclusion you did! Ivory for the vast majority with Emotional Piano as needed. I'll also pepper in the 8Dio 1928 piano if I want something a little darker. Don't have the discretionary fund for the HZ Piano but it sounds good.


----------



## elpedro (Mar 15, 2016)

for character i like any of the imperfect samples pianos like the walnut grand,for pop i use the native instruments piano's and also i like the e-instruments grand y for poppy/jazzy stuff..for rock i use a simpler paino like addictive keys, it really depends a lot on mood, and what kind of mix or do you want the piano to "cut through or blend" etc.no one piano will do everything, hence the V.I addictions most of us here have....


----------



## owenave (Mar 16, 2016)

But if you had money only to buy one library for now, what would you buy?
Unless I get a big project soon I can't afford multiple ones.
I just spent most of my tax refund on a 5.1 12 Core 3.3 and SSD drives
and a couple libraries.


----------



## elpedro (Mar 16, 2016)

owenave said:


> But if you had money only to buy one library for now, what would you buy?
> Unless I get a big project soon I can't afford multiple ones.
> I just spent most of my tax refund on a 5.1 12 Core 3.3 and SSD drives
> and a couple libraries.


Hard call, I'm an addict! LOL! probably the imperfect samples...walnut grand
http://www.imperfectsamples.com/index.php


----------



## Jacob Cadmus (Mar 16, 2016)

For pop/rock productions = The Maverick

For moody tunes and film score = Braunschweig Upright


----------



## dimtsak (Mar 16, 2016)

I would say don't go for imperfect samples walnut as an one-for-all piano.

I ve been in this potition and it is not that versatille. Or at least i couldn't use it that well. 

But it is nice for some uses of course.


----------



## Mr Greg G (Mar 16, 2016)

I'm a real sucker for Alicia's Keys, my go to Piano especially for Pop tracks. When I use it in an orchestral track, it may need a bit of tweeking but the sound is very versatile you can tail it as you like.


----------



## bryla (Mar 16, 2016)

I'm a sucker for The Giant!


----------



## Purplepants (Mar 16, 2016)

Pianoteq is brilliant, Ivory is great as too is emotional piano and Maljmso.
Personally I don't like any of the NI Pianos. I can see why you might use them in a pop/rock production, but they sounds nothing like real pianos to me.


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 16, 2016)

Soniccouture Hammersmith wins hands down for me.


----------



## cristianmatei (Mar 16, 2016)

Addictive Keys- Studio Grand


----------



## ghostnote (Mar 16, 2016)

I'm not a big fan of NI Pianos. I own the Giant, Alicia's and the Emotional, but I keep coming back to QL Pianos.


----------



## Pschelfh (Mar 16, 2016)

Braunschweig Upright, sounds pretty real to me, but you have to like the character of the sound of course.

For more a modern, neutral sounding piano, I like Alicia's Keys.

For emo stuff, I really like Spitfire Audio Olafur Arnalds piano : http://www.spitfireaudio.com/shop/producers/olafur-arnalds-composer-toolkit/

Peter.


----------



## jononotbono (Mar 16, 2016)

I just bought Cinesamples Piano in Blue and have to say I love it so far. It's got loads of Character so maybe better for certain things than others. I am now looking at Pianoteq and the Spitfire HZ Piano. Need more SSDs first though...


----------



## Flux (Mar 16, 2016)

Pearl Concert Grand by Impact Soundworks is a great sounding Yamaha that has worked for me. Very nice sounding instrument.


----------



## WorshipMaestro (Mar 16, 2016)

Not a Kontakt instrument, but I've become partial to the UVI Ravenscroft 275. I find that with the multiple mic positions I can get it to fit in just about any kind of track. They provide 3 iLok licenses too, which makes it convenient when moving between my work studio and home studio.


----------



## passsacaglia (Mar 16, 2016)

Just bought Emotional piano by Soundiron, superb great!! 

Someone mentioned Imperfect Samples Walnut Steinway Grand, sounded really nice too.
I also like the Grandeur.


----------



## jononotbono (Mar 16, 2016)

passsacaglia said:


> Just bought Emotional piano by Soundiron, superb great!!
> 
> Someone mentioned Imperfect Samples Walnut Steinway Grand, sounded really nice too.
> I also like the Grandeur.



Yeah Man! Emotional Piano is definitely another must buy. I think I am going to play the Lottery this weekend!


----------



## passsacaglia (Mar 16, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> Yeah Man! Emotional Piano is definitely another must buy. I think I am going to play the Lottery this weekend!


Haha do that! Good luck man!


----------



## Vin (Mar 16, 2016)

Piano in Blue by far, I use it 85% of the time. The second 15% are The Giant and Felt Piano.


----------



## synthpunk (Mar 16, 2016)

As you can see piano is a very personnel choice and it becomes hard to choose without being able to try them out first. There is real balance between tone and playability that is hard to find in most libraries IMHO.

I would suggest you try the demo version of Modart Pianoteq. It is a modeled piano and V5 is very very good. They been doing this 10 years now and there are a good Steinway and Yamaha (more modern brighter sound) models included.

For more personality I love the new NI Una Corda (for a Nils Frahm sound) and the Spitfire Olafur Arnalds toolkit piano. And for a $3 donation you can still get allot of mileage of the old Spitfire Labs Felt Piano (now called soft piano).


----------



## MrCambiata (Mar 16, 2016)

I use Piano in Blue, NI The Grandeur and OT Orchestral Grands, they cover everything you need.


----------



## WindcryMusic (Mar 16, 2016)

cristianmatei said:


> Addictive Keys- Studio Grand



I used to use Addictive Keys Studio Grand, until I listened back to some of my recordings of it for mono compatibility and heard awful comb-filtering. My best guess is that they did some trickery with the stereo image in their samples which isn't exactly mono-friendly. Anyway, I've since deleted it from my workstations.

After that, I was briefly using the Galaxy Vintage D for my cinematic efforts, but decided that it didn't have enough character or power for that purpose. Currently I am finding The Giant to be best suited of my piano libraries for cinematic stuff, but will go back to Vintage D for certain delicate things. And both of these libraries at least seem to behave reasonably well when summed to mono.


----------



## tack (Mar 16, 2016)

These threads keep coming up and the same opinions expressed every time. I start to sound like a broken record 

Since Kontakt was specifically asked about, I'll say my preference is Vintage D. But practice and composing/noodling is Pianoteq, which just _feels_ right to play. For the past month or so I've been using the Bluthner with Pianoteq and really like the silky character. It has less of the plastic, synthetic sound that I've previously criticized Pianoteq for.

It's probably important to mention that I have a light touch. In terms of what I play and how I play it, I spend a lot of time in the pp-mp range, and in my opinion this is where most sample libraries fall apart.


----------



## Chris Porter (Mar 16, 2016)

I almost never see the Garritan CFX mentioned. Is it simply because no one has taken the leap and bought that massive thing, or those who have just don't like it? I've listened to demos and watched the videos and it seems quite incredible. 

http://www.garritan.com/products/cfx-concert-grand-virtual-piano/

To answer the OP's question: I use The Giant, Alicia's Keys, and Spitfire Felt Piano (not the free one) the most. I'd love to get Emotional Piano, Piano in Blue, and The Hammersmith someday if money allows.


----------



## Bulb (Mar 17, 2016)

For me I would have to say Piano In Blue for a warm and more delicate sound, Pearl Concert Grand for a brighter and more modern sound, and Orchestral Tools Orchestral Grand when it needs to sit well in an orchestral mix. With that said, I probably use Piano In Blue the most.


----------



## Vik (Mar 17, 2016)

This:


----------



## Jacob Cadmus (Mar 17, 2016)

aesthete said:


> For more personality I love the new NI Una Corda (for a Nils Frahm sound) and the Spitfire Olafur Arnalds toolkit piano. And for a $3 donation you can still get allot of mileage of the old Spitfire Labs Felt Piano (now called soft piano).



Speaking of the Olafur piano, I wish SF could someday sample his minipiano from Living Room Songs, if he still has it I mean.


----------



## Florian_W (Mar 17, 2016)

I LOVE the Giant. For me it is the most versatile piano at the moment. It can be used for pop music, it can be jazzy and funky and also very cinematic. It is perfect!


----------



## zeng (Mar 17, 2016)

I prefer 8dio's 1990 Studio Grand in these days...


----------



## thedigitalDog (Mar 17, 2016)

i love both the una corda and the maverick ! the una corda if i had to pick only one.


----------



## zeng (Mar 17, 2016)

thedigitalDog said:


> i love both the una corda and the maverick ! the una corda if i had to pick only one.



+1


----------



## Monkberry (Mar 17, 2016)

So many great choices and one is never enough. I find the Ivory American Concert D to be the most balanced for my purposes, but also like the Pearl Yamaha from Impact Soundworks. I typically take a little high end off as it can be a tad bright. Love it though. For character or ambient, I love both Una Corda and the Giant. Never cared much for the other pianos from Native Instruments, although I have used Alicia's Keys to supplement. I should mention that Pianoteq is a great product also. You can certainly sculpt a very nicely-balanced sound from some of their models.


----------



## AR (Mar 17, 2016)

Malmsjö 1+ 
Emo Piano, great too
Piano in blue (in some regions)
Ot Metropolis Piano (for some non-solo piano+orch stuff)


----------



## toddkedwards (Mar 17, 2016)

I like NI's The Giant, but it looks like I need to check out Piano in Blue. Cinesamples is currently having a sale and it's for $74.


----------



## StatKsn (Mar 17, 2016)

Skerratt London Piano (Kontakt freebie) has an amazing rain piano-ish tone. Only one velocity layer with key noise attack baked in, but can be quite emotional when velocity-modulated LPF is added.


----------



## Michayl Asaph (Mar 17, 2016)

Production Voices Grand is fantastic!


----------



## Ultraxenon (Mar 17, 2016)

I use 8dio 1991 Grand Piano and Alica Keys. For some ambient moody stuff Giant could be a good choice


----------



## passsacaglia (Mar 17, 2016)

That swedish malmsjö ideed sounds really fat.


----------



## synthpunk (Mar 17, 2016)

With a 1903 Walnut Bechstein now Jacob I wonder if he plays that beater anymore ? But I know what your saying. it's very intimate. You can dial lots of this type of ambiance in on the Una Corda btw.



Jacob Cadmus said:


> Speaking of the Olafur piano, I wish SF could someday sample his minipiano from Living Room Songs, if he still has it I mean.


----------



## bigcat1969 (Mar 17, 2016)

Inspired by thoughts on this forum, I cut the Skerratt London Piano samples to make the instrument tighter as it had too much delay. So it might be worth re-downloading. Also a bit of a rework of the Iowa Steinway.

They are certainly older, but I enjoy the Sampletekk Bosendorfers and Black Grand for Kontakt far too much. Also the Giant is just fun to mess with.


----------



## owenave (Mar 17, 2016)

You know I could have not asked a more passionate bunch of guys about piano's.
You can feel your love for them in your answers. Thanks All. I have plenty to check out.
So far I am leaning toward Ivory II. But checking all before I make my choice.


----------



## C-Wave (Mar 17, 2016)

No idea why nobody mentioned e-instruments, two pianos (Yamaha / Steinway) for the price of one, with built-in animator (great for generating ideas) and compatible with NI maschine and NKS Format. Great for jazzy tones.


----------



## musicman61554 (Mar 17, 2016)

I love The Maverick, The Hammersmith and The Gentleman.


----------



## alanb (Mar 17, 2016)

I loved SampleTekk's mega-multi-velocity-leveled TBO (a Yamaha C7) back in the Giga days, and I love it's rejuvenation as TVBO even more. You can mix stereo signals captured in different places with two mic types (a Neumann SM2 and a U89 pair), it has its own built-in EQ, convo reverb, and a number of pianistic effects that you can tweak as much or as little as you want.

http://www.sampletekk.com/grand-pianos&product_id=162


----------



## Redolasire (Mar 18, 2016)

Chris Porter said:


> I almost never see the Garritan CFX mentioned. Is it simply because no one has taken the leap and bought that massive thing, or those who have just don't like it? I've listened to demos and watched the videos and it seems quite incredible.
> 
> http://www.garritan.com/products/cfx-concert-grand-virtual-piano/
> 
> To answer the OP's question: I use The Giant, Alicia's Keys, and Spitfire Felt Piano (not the free one) the most. I'd love to get Emotional Piano, Piano in Blue, and The Hammersmith someday if money allows.



The garritan CFX is by far the most natural piano for me. I use it for all purpose, especially in solo piano work. The Ivory American concert D is my second choice. I have Spitfire Hans Zimmer piano and never use it. Some free piano samples like piano in 162 worth a try.


----------



## zacnelson (Mar 18, 2016)

I love the 8dio Studio Upright, Cinesamples Piano in Blue, and EastWest Steinway


----------



## Ethos (Mar 18, 2016)

Piano in Blue. 

Still use EWQL Pianos, especially the Bosendorfer quite often. Although that's obviously not a Kontakt lib.


----------



## prodigalson (Mar 18, 2016)

Surprised Piano in Blue isn't being mentioned more. It's in my top 3 go to pianos and for $74 right now on sale it's a steal.


----------



## synthpunk (Mar 18, 2016)

It's actually mentioned quite often, enough for me to add I wish it was more playable IMHO, as I am a big fan of that Bill Evans/30th street sound.



prodigalson said:


> Surprised Piano in Blue isn't being mentioned more. It's in my top 3 go to pianos and for $74 right now on sale it's a steal.


----------



## Vik (Mar 18, 2016)

owenave said:


> So far I am leaning toward Ivory II. But checking all before I make my choice.


Since I posted that YT-clip earlier in this thread, I should probably mention that that piano is great, but doesn't sound quite as good as that clip, out of the box. It has been processed with the Tracks Black 76 Compressor and Waves L3 UltraMaximizer (adaptive limiter) according to the guy who made it.


----------



## owenave (Mar 18, 2016)

Vik said:


> Since I posted that YT-clip earlier in this thread, I should probably mention that that piano is great, but doesn't sound quite as good as that clip, out of the box. It has been processed with the Tracks Black 76 Compressor and Waves L3 UltraMaximizer (adaptive limiter) according to the guy who made it.


I am sure many of the manufacturers probably embellish the sound when doing demos.
I wish there was a downloadable 15 day demo of Ivory Piano II to try out. But I cannot find one on their site.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 19, 2016)

Owenave,

If the specifics of your opening question still stand — a piano that works well in rock, pop, jazz and classical — the Ivory AmericanD is a good choice. Not a Kontakt library of course, but that doesn’t seem to be as important a requirement now as it was when you started the thread.

Roughly (very roughly, that is), sampled pianos can be divided into two categories. At the one end, you have the libraries that hope to bring you the sound and playability of a neutral-sounding, well-recorded high-quality instrument. A handful of sampled pianos do just that, but instruments in this category are also known for lacking somewhat in personality. Which is, I guess, the price that needs to be paid in order to get that pristine-sounding versatility of theirs.

And at the other hand, you have the so-called ‘character instruments’: pianos of a somewhat more limited stylistic range and scope, but with a distinct musical personality which, if that personality happens to fit the music you’re using these pianos for, will sound more convincing and ‘right’ than just about anything else. (Assuming we’re limiting ourselves to virtual choices of course.)

For some reason however, many of these character instruments are nowhere near as playable as the ones in the first category. ‘Playable’ in the sense that, if you’re a serious pianist of some experience and you sit down at your keyboard, you want your instrument to respond more or less as you’d expect a piano to do, right? And you want that to happen in every octave and across the entire dynamic range. Well, I don’t know of any ‘character piano’ that scores very highly in this respect. Pity, but that’s how it is.

(Not all the ones in the first category deserve top marks for playability either, though. The Hammersmith, for one, comes to mind.)

Very unplayable, for example — under my hands anyway —, are the instruments from ImperfectSamples and 8dio. (Not saying these are bad libraries — they can, in the right context, be the best of all choices, but they’re just not very playable as pianos.)

It all depends on what you want of course, if you’re a two-finger player whose piano-abilities and -requirements don’t stretch beyond some dreamy Thomas Newman-esque phrases over a carpet of slow-moving strings, ‘playability’ needn’t perhaps be high on your list of important considerations. But if you’re an accomplished player who needs an instrument that serves and obeys his/her trained and dexterous hands well in a multitude of genres and styles, you might wanna reflect for a moment on the playability of whatever sampled instrument you have your eyes set on. (If you’re an accomplished player, I don’t need to tell you all of this of course, as you’d already know.)

The Ivory American D definitely falls in the first category (in fact it may even be the best example of that category): cleanly sampled, decent sound, versatile timbre, satisfyingly playable, but … with a tendency of always sounding a bit polite, generic and personality-challenged. It feels at home in just about any style or genre (assuming you as a player can take it there), it’s reliable and it also mixes well with other sounds/instruments (something which is rarely mentioned when discussing virtual pianos and also an aspect where, in my opinion, modeled pianos tend to disappoint).
My personal favourite in that first category however, and by quite some distance, is the Galaxy VintageD.

Picking a favourite in the second category — the character pianos — seems utterly pointless to me as these pianos all need a more specific musical style or context to shine. And when they do, they shine like none other. All of them.
When, for instance, Soundiron’s Emotional Piano works, it is simply without competition. And the same is true of the Piano In Blue and all the others. So, ideally, you have to buy them all.

That last sentence was written less in jest than you might think. If you’re serious about your piano work and happen to be active in a lot of different genres and styles, and if you’re blessed — or perhaps ‘cursed’ is the better word here — with a discerning ear which demands ‘timbre that matches the musical content’, you’ll quickly discover that one, or two, or even five or six piano libraries are barely enough to offer satisfying solutions for all the situations you’ll find yourself in.

Limiting myself to sampled pianos, my recommendation would be: two from the first category, three or four from the second.

_


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 19, 2016)

owenave said:


> I am sure many of the manufacturers probably embellish the sound when doing demos.
> I wish there was a downloadable 15 day demo of Ivory Piano II to try out. But I cannot find one on their site.


I think this is a very subjective area, but FWIW, Ivory 2 is one of my 8 or so (I lose count) pianos, and I never use it. It has a deadness that I can't quite explain. I don't feel air moving when I play it.


----------



## StatKsn (Mar 19, 2016)

bigcat1969 said:


> Inspired by thoughts on this forum, I cut the Skerratt London Piano samples to make the instrument tighter as it had too much delay. So it might be worth re-downloading. Also a bit of a rework of the Iowa Steinway.
> 
> They are certainly older, but I enjoy the Sampletekk Bosendorfers and Black Grand for Kontakt far too much. Also the Giant is just fun to mess with.



Thanks so much for heads up, but it seems the rework also cutted key attacks which what I felt like making Skerratt London Piano really intimate and emotional. If I am allowed to post modified .nki monolith, I may upload my own version for testing (which attempts to cut attack with a different approach).


----------



## Monkberry (Mar 19, 2016)

+1 what re-peat posted. Couldn't ask for a more-true and rational answer. (IMO of course)


----------



## A3D2 (Mar 19, 2016)

If you have the time, I would always suggest to sample your own piano libraries: for the basic sustain-stuff it can take 1 day of recording (if you are lucky maybe you know people with a concert grand or a music school or local orchestra that will let you use it for a day) and 1 or 2 days of editing in kontakt and you're done . I have already sampled 4 pianos myself of different brands and ages of pianos I liked and it gives a personal touch to my music. Personally I am very specific about which piano sounds I like and which I don't, which is why I tend to sample the piano's I come across that inspire me. But if you do not have the time to do this and are really looking for a commercially sampled piano, I would really recommend Piano in Blue by cinesamples. I really like that one: you can use it in many contexts if you use some Eq and reverb .


----------



## Vik (Mar 19, 2016)

A3D2 said:


> If you have the time, I would always suggest to sample your own piano libraries: for the basic sustain-stuff it can take 1 day of recording (if you are lucky maybe you know people with a concert grand or a music school or local orchestra that will let you use it for a day) and 1 or 2 days of editing in kontakt and you're done


That would be a lot of work if you'll try to compete with the realism of the good libraries out there, which sometimes have 16 or more velocity layers sampled for each key...


----------



## A3D2 (Mar 19, 2016)

Vik said:


> That would be a lot of work if you'll try to compete with the realism of the good libraries out there, which sometimes have 16 or more velocity layers sampled for each key...


That's true you're absolutely right about that if you go for the same level of detail as a commercial release. In my own piano sampling I definitely don't go that far for sake of realism . But for me personally, sometimes in the context of a musical piece a home-sampled piano of 4 velocity layers combined with a random neighbour zones round robin script works quite well and is friendly on the RAM and CPU. But I guess it all depends on what you're going for. For me 90% of realism works just as well and I then prefer having a more personal piano sound over a more realistic commercially released one. But that's just my opinion of course, I realize that many people would think differently about this: just wanted to help out . I think if he's going for a sampled piano you can buy, my vote goes to Cinesamples Piano in Blue


----------



## owenave (Mar 19, 2016)

re-peat said:


> Owenave,
> 
> If the specifics of your opening question still stand — a piano that works well in rock, pop, jazz and classical — the Ivory AmericanD is a good choice. Not a Kontakt library of course, but that doesn’t seem to be as important a requirement now as it was when you started the thread.
> 
> ...


Although I played in rock, jazz and fusion bands I was classical trained when I first started playing so I am more than a 2 note picker (Grins) It does not matter if it is Kontakt or a stand alone application as long as it sounds and plays great. Lots of great ideas you bring up.


----------



## bigcat1969 (Mar 21, 2016)

Sorry I've been gone for a bit. Thanks for letting me know about how the cuts effected the attacks.
I would love to hear your nki monolith of the Skerrett London Piano.


----------



## JPQ (Mar 22, 2016)

Only buyed piano sounds (i dont count stuff which comes DAW or NI Komplete becouse i dont buyed them for piano sounds) what i have are Galaxy II pianos where i prefer Steinway one most samples what i like pianos are sampled some Steinway some are not but they are often more special uses pianos not generic piano sound. i say anything else whole thing depends what user want do. Even cinematic uses is all kind beetween ballads and massive tunes and music which uses piano experimental ways. btw i somehow dislike how these modeled sounds maybe they need supert good reverb use to work or something else...


----------



## tmm (Mar 22, 2016)

babylonwaves said:


> Soniccouture Hammersmith wins hands down for me.



Same here. Being totally honest, I hated it at first, probably because it's so much closer / cleaner than my other piano libraries (i.e. wasn't what I was used to). Once I started tweaking it, I began to realize that it's by far the most versatile and dynamic of my 13 piano libraries.


----------



## The Darris (Mar 23, 2016)

Hammersmith. Versatile. Took me just a few minutes to tweak it to my playing style and create my own patches for different contexts. I love the sound of Spitfire's Soft Piano (The Labs version) and I was able to create my own variation of that with the Hammersmith. What I get with it is more dynamic range and expression than the Soft Piano. The Malmsjö also has a great tone that I really like. I am not a pro pianist but it was my first instrument so I gravitate towards it a lot, especially when I compose. The Hammersmith just gives me everything I need to get inspired while writing.


----------



## Chris Porter (Mar 23, 2016)

I'm looking to possibly get a new piano library myself. What's everyone's experience with Impact Soundwork's Pearl Concert Grand? It's one that I don't really see mentioned very often. It looks and sounds lovely, but I'm really attracted to the Hammersmith's 21 velocity layers, whereas Pearl only has eight. Though both libraries sampled pedal up and down separately which is a plus.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 23, 2016)

Never understood the enthusiasm for The Hammersmith. Even after the two corrective updates which have meanwhile been released, this piano, I find, remains seriously challenged, dynamically speaking: neither capable of truly convincing softs nor louds. 

With so many dynamic layers sampled, you'd think that at least one of the dynamic extremes would be covered adequately, but that isn't the case: for most of its register, this piano often sounds as if sampled somewhere around the mezzo-mezzoforte-forte range, and therefore incapable of summoning, at one end, the majestic, noble and authoritative grandeur, but also, at the other end, the very soft, warm and gently caressing sound that a good grand piano is (or should be) able to produce. 
This instrument may have 21 dynamic layers, but its timbre is, too often, that of a sampled piano which has only four or five. And the problem is even increased by the fact that some isolated notes or certain ranges appear to have a bigger dynamic span than others, resulting in an at times distractingly uneven response depending on which notes or which ranges you frequent.

There certainly are some great sounds in there — it is, after all, a SonicCouture product — but I don't think they amount to a great sampled piano.

_


----------



## Chris Porter (Mar 23, 2016)

re-peat said:


> Never understood the enthusiasm for The Hammersmith. Even after the two corrective updates which have meanwhile been released, this piano, I find, remains seriously challenged, dynamically speaking: neither capable of truly convincing softs nor louds.
> 
> With so many dynamic layers sampled, you'd think that at least one of the dynamic extremes would be covered adequately, but that isn't the case: for most of its register, this piano often sounds as if sampled somewhere around the mezzo-mezzoforte-forte range, and therefore incapable of summoning, at one end, the majestic, noble and authoritative grandeur, but also, at the other end, the very soft, warm and gently caressing sound that a good grand piano is (or should be) able to produce.
> This instrument may have 21 dynamic layers, but its timbre is, too often, that of a sampled piano which has only four or five. And the problem is even increased by the fact that some isolated notes or certain ranges appear to have a bigger dynamic span than others, resulting in an at times distractingly uneven response depending on which notes or which ranges you frequent.
> ...


I've heard this a number of times regarding the velocity response of the Hammersmith. I would have assumed the 21 velocities were sampled evenly from very soft to very hard, but I guess that's not case, huh? 

In your opinion, what piano has the most even and natural distribution of velocities sampled across the ranges? (Not counting Pianoteq, just sampled libraries)


----------



## soniccouture (Mar 23, 2016)

re-peat said:


> With so many dynamic layers sampled, you'd think that at least one of the dynamic extremes would be covered adequately, but that isn't the case: for most of its register, this piano often sounds as if sampled somewhere around the mezzo-mezzoforte-forte range, and therefore incapable of summoning, at one end, the majestic, noble and authoritative grandeur, but also, at the other end, the very soft, warm and gently caressing sound that a good grand piano is (or should be) able to produce.
> This instrument may have 21 dynamic layers, but its timbre is, too often, that of a sampled piano which has only four or five. And the problem is even increased by the fact that some isolated notes or certain ranges appear to have a bigger dynamic span than others, resulting in an at times distractingly uneven response depending on which notes or which ranges you frequent.
> 
> There certainly are some great sounds in there — it is, after all, a SonicCouture product — but I don't think they amount to a great sampled piano.
> ...




Hi re-peat,
it's a shame you can't get along with The Hammersmith. I would just like to clarify for others reading this that the 21 layers we sampled do range from as quiet-as-could-be-played (velocity 1 was played by human hand) to very loud-possibly-louder-than-any-human-would-realistically-ever-play loud.
I'm not sure why that doesn't come across for you when using the instrument, but we're all looking for something different with pianos guess - that's been the one over-reaching lesson we have learned from this process!

James


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 23, 2016)

re-peat said:


> There certainly are some great sounds in there — it is, after all, a SonicCouture product — but I don't think they amount to a great sampled piano.


as stated before I think it does. but looking at this thread one can see how different we all think about what a great piano is. my focus is rather simple:
- i like the sound (you can sit me in front of a steinway grand and i will never be as happy as in front of a bösendorfer imperial - still both a great pianos)
- it works in the mix and i can get both the force and intimacy required
i'm a bit surprised about your statement regarding the dynamic layers. from what I know, the original piano sampled is equipped with a yamaha disc clavier mechanic and in difference to manually triggering the keys, it should have been especially easy to get a decent set of dynamic variations. you're right about the following: some notes do sound different when played ff/fff - i know that some keys have quirks and there are artifacts but to me, those just add to the character of hammersmith.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 23, 2016)

Here's a 7’30” *comparison* (320 kpbs mp3) between the *VintageD* and *The Hammersmith*, both using the default preset.

Just a couple of improvised fragments (played on a V-Piano) exploring the entire dynamic range, first rendered by the VintageD, followed by The Hammersmith. To my ears, the VintageD is — in all of these fragments (except maybe the sixth one) — the more convincing, and often by quite some margin, at both extremes of the dynamic range. And frequently in between as well, to be honest.

The Hammersmith simply never barks, bites, resonates, explodes or, at the other end, sings, whispers and caresses with the sweetest tenderness like the VintageD does. It sounds inhibited at both ends of the dynamic range and seems determined to want to express itself most of the time with a rather hard, cold and limited timbre. And I’m also of the opinion that its upper range lacks the presence, power and volume to sit on top of its lower range, the way I'm used to that happening in a piano.
(Not to mention the timbral and dynamic inconsistencies and imbalances of The Hammersmith which aren’t illustrated in this comparison.)

While I certainly don’t doubt that, after thorough editing of the recorded midi-data and of the instrument’s parameters (in Kontakt), a more flattering and impressive sound might be coaxed from The Hammersmith here, this comparison is an honest representation of how they both, at default settings, respond to my playing.

(The output of both instruments was sent straight to the StereoOut of my DAW, where I added a touch of the EA Phoenix and an instance of the Flux Elixir limiter, at its most subtle setting. Other than these: no processing whatsoever.)

Truly sorry, but I find The Hammersmith, in its current state, crippled in ways that I don’t want a sampled piano, nor ever expected a SonicCouture product, to be crippled. Again, there’s lots of great samples in there, but like I said a few days after the product’s release: this piano needs, programming-wise, a much more thorough revision, certainly more thorough than the two superficial patches it received since, before it’ll be everything that the samples, and all the work and the couturian expertise invested, should allow it to be.


_Start times of the various fragments:
(1)_ 0’02” - _(2) _0’39” - _(3)_ 0’59” - _(4)_ 1’34” - _(5)_ 1’58” - _(6)_ 2’25” - _(7)_ 3’05” - _(8) _5’14”


_


----------



## storyteller (Mar 23, 2016)

Chris Porter said:


> I'm looking to possibly get a new piano library myself. What's everyone's experience with Impact Soundwork's Pearl Concert Grand? It's one that I don't really see mentioned very often. It looks and sounds lovely, but I'm really attracted to the Hammersmith's 21 velocity layers, whereas Pearl only has eight. Though both libraries sampled pedal up and down separately which is a plus.



Chris, without pitting one library against another, I have to say Pearl is my favorite go-to piano when it comes to most uses - especially casual playing and sketching. I own the usual assortment of pianos that most people talk about here and while there is something special about the tone of many of the "emotional" pianos (such as Piano in Blue, Emotional Piano, etc) the difference between Pearl and some of the others is that Pearl does not seem limited in playing styles. It just sounds like a beautiful piano that calls out to be played. I think any person here would be remised not to have it in their collection. But for example, while a song like Bittersweet (by Jim Brickman) is right at home on Pearl and would sound almost identical to his recording (), I can't play the first four bars of Bittersweet using Piano In Blue without feeling like the piano is unresponsive. That said, I do use Piano In Blue a lot - and I love its sound! It just depends on your needs. My ear has always favored the sound of a Yamaha C7. Not sure why. In a blind test, the C7s always call out to me. To be honest, if I did not own Pearl, my piano collection would always have a void that needed filling.


----------



## tack (Mar 23, 2016)

Piet's demo is, as usual, an excellent demonstration of his point. It wonderfully underlines the differences and (IMO) superiority of Vintage D. To my ears, in the pp-p range (the most important one to me) it just sings in comparison.


----------



## tack (Mar 23, 2016)

storyteller said:


> Chris, without pitting one library against another, I have to say Pearl is my favorite go-to piano when it comes to most uses - especially casual playing and sketching.


I wanted to like the Pearl. Unfortunately I found it terribly unplayable.


----------



## bigcat1969 (Mar 23, 2016)

I apologize for asking this type of question again, but what makes a piano 'playable'?


----------



## bryla (Mar 23, 2016)

bigcat1969 said:


> I apologize for asking this type of question again, but what makes a piano 'playable'?


hit key -> sound


----------



## tack (Mar 23, 2016)

bigcat1969 said:


> I apologize for asking this type of question again, but what makes a piano 'playable'?


The simple (and not intentionally glib) answer is that it's playable when it feels relatively close to an acoustic piano, and not like, as bryla said, you're just triggering samples when you press a key.

This translates to a few important bits of functionality. Repedalling is crucial for me. This is when you press (or re-press) the sustain _after_ having already released the note, catching it again. You can usually pretty easily spot libraries that lack this in their demos. For example, with the initial release of the Pearl Concert Grand, the Fantaisie Impromptu demo was extremely jarring to me, as important bass notes immediately dropped away when instead they were supposed to resonate. (There was a subsequent update that add some form of repedalling but this doesn't feel right either. I criticized this implementation in the video I linked to a few posts up.)

Related to that, half pedal transitioning is a further nuance, so that when, having pressed a key with the pedal down, I release the pedal half way, it transitions to a half pedal decay.

Tonality is also important. In my opinion, many libraries betray themselves as samples when you start playing below p. ppp especially is something I think only Pianoteq gets right. When I play, for example, Chopin Op 28 No 4 (aka "Suffocation") even my beloved Vintage D crumbles somewhat in the ppp spots. The transitions between pp and ppp sound like volume changes, and lack the important timbre gradients of a real piano.

Another sonic aspect is sympathetic resonance. I think nowadays most piano VIs model this in one way or another, but I notice it very quickly when it doesn't. It really adds to the richness of the tone.

Those are a few initial thoughts. Really, "playability" is the sum total of all these little nuances that we feel when we sit at a real piano but don't entirely notice.

As an example of one of those very small nuances, release velocity actually affects the decay of notes. It's extremely subtle, and only a few digital pianos provide this MIDI data, and just as few VSTs actually use it (Pianoteq does). You probably won't really notice it while playing. But the totality of all these little things contribute to that crucial _feel_ we all talk about.


----------



## Chris Porter (Mar 23, 2016)

tack said:


> I wanted to like the Pearl. Unfortunately I found it terribly unplayable.



I actually stumbled upon that video you linked to last night when I was searching out user reviews/overviews of the various pianos I'm interested in. The repedaling and half-pedaling issue isn't as big a deal to me. Since I'm not a great piano player, I usually just record a couple of measures at a time and edit the data later for realism. Also, I usually just separate the left hand from the right hand as two separate takes so I can both automate them (including the pedal functionality) and process them separately. This allows me to keep the bass notes ringing out even if I release the higher notes when needed (not exactly the same as repedaling, but close). However, that room noise on the lower velocity samples was shocking and something that I'd rather not have to deal with. It pains me to say that, because Impact Soundworks is one of my favorite developers. I own many of their wonderful libraries and respect them a lot. 

Since playability isn't terribly important to me, as long as I can make the piano sound realistic enough my editing midi and cc data later, a beautiful and versatile sounding piano is what I'm looking for. I'm still somewhat attracted to The Hammersmith, though the Garritan CFX is really tempting, though it's probably a bit more than I'd like to pay.


----------



## tack (Mar 23, 2016)

Chris Porter said:


> It pains me to say that, because Impact Soundworks is one of my favorite developers. I own many of their wonderful libraries and respect them a lot.


Yeah, ditto. The guy from Impact Soundworks responded to that video in exactly the way that makes me want to throw more money at the company in support of their work. The Pearl regrettably won't find a place in my practice sessions or recordings, but I will definitely buy future products from them.


----------



## slobajudge (Mar 24, 2016)

Hello to everyone,
I think that except Garritan CFX I have all piano libraries mention here, and play it almost every day. Also from time to time I like to call my friends to listen (again) beside me and bring some conclusions about different piano libraries and their sound. So, I said, for me and for my friends, in the world of piano samples in general meaning there is one piano that stand above all others, and that is VSL Vienna imperial. In the world of piano modeling there is Pianoteq as a live digital instrument. Ende. Take both and there is nothing better for solo playing. Yes, the excellent pianos are also Ravenscroft 275, Hammersmith, Pearl (with little quirks), and depends of needs and song mode Piano in blue (also with little problems), Fluffy audio My piano, Galaxy Vintage D, etc. Also I love the sound from Imperfect samples Fazioli and Steinway, but has problems with dynamics and playability. No matter of all 127 midi levels of Pianoteq, VSL Vienna imperial is the beast with massive dynamics samples in vertical direction, and blows everything others. If someone is serious about expression in Classical or other dynamic music, this is the top piano who will give you that kind of power and control under your fingers from ppp to fff. Whenever I think: `oh, Ravenscroft is really good, and Pianoteq even better `, and then play VSL, there is just no comparison. I play them all on Kawai VPC1.


----------



## soniccouture (Mar 24, 2016)

re-peat said:


> Here's a 7’30” *comparison* (320 kpbs mp3) between the *VintageD* and *The Hammersmith*, both using the default preset.
> 
> Just a couple of improvised fragments (played on a V-Piano) exploring the entire dynamic range, first rendered by the VintageD, followed by The Hammersmith.
> 
> ...




Thanks for posting this comparison - I think that it is important to understand that the 'default' performance setup of the Hammersmith is merely a zeroed starting point for each individual player. As others here have already said, the Hammersmith is designed so that with a few simple adjustments, you can radically alter the way it responds to both live performance and MIDI data.

Here is another comparison, using a "Panis Angelicus" MIDI file that was used on Gearslutz for a similar piano shootout a while back. No additional reverb was added in this test.


PanisAngelicus - Hammersmith Close + RoomTree

PanisAngelicus - VintageDdefault


----------



## re-peat (Mar 24, 2016)

soniccouture said:


> it is important to understand that the 'default' performance setup of the Hammersmith is merely a zeroed starting point for each individual player


I’m sure it is, James, but my point is: no amount of editing is going to give me what isn’t there in the first place: a timbre that corresponds — convincingly — with ALL the dynamics that I expect to find in all the registers of a quality (grand) piano.
(Something which that rather uninformative Panis Angelicus example doesn’t tell us much about, I find.)

‘Playability’ to me means that _every single choice or decision I make as a player is accurately reflected in how the instrument responds_. If a piano is capable of translating all of my intentions into a corresponding sound/timbre, then I call it ‘playable’ and then I can connect with it. This connection is key, for me. And I have it with the VintageD.

But I can’t connect with the Hammersmith because due to its, in my view, flawed programming, it forces me to almost constantly adjust my playing so as to avoid (or compensate for) what I experience as shortcomings. If I play ‘pp’ on the Hammersmith and it responds with sounding already closer to ‘p’ or even ‘mf’, I’m distracted. And if slam the keys with the expectation of hearing a powerful ‘fff’ ring out, but I get the much weaker sound of an ‘f’ instead, I get frustrated. And if I play a chord and certain notes come through stronger than others, thereby colouring that chord differently than I had anticipated, there is, I feel, something wrong. As there is when what my right hand plays is in near constant danger of getting buried under the sound of what my left plays.
If the dynamic expression of what I play doesn’t register with the instrument, or gets mistranslated — both of which happens with the Hammersmith — I can’t but conclude I’m sitting at a not-very-playable piano.

Here’s one more (and much shorter) *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Comparison_VintageD-Hammersmith_2.mp3 (example)*. (As before: first the VintageD, and then the same bit with The Hammersmith.) Again sorry, but this, to my ears, is yet another clear illustration of the fact that even though The Hammersmith is twice as sophisticated and has more than twice the amount of velocity layers than the VintageD, it has less than half the colours.
And that difference just can’t be edited away. (And believe me, I tried. I didn’t buy the Pro version of the Hammersmith to then settle lazily for its default preset.)

But to end on a more positive note: the Hammersmith is definitely capable of many great and beautiful things. But I’m convinced it would be capable of A LOT more if it were completely reprogrammed, re-betatested and be serviced with a few all new high-velocity layers for its bass octaves.

_


----------



## CGR (Mar 25, 2016)

re-peat said:


> I’m sure it is, James, but my point is: no amount of editing is going to give me what isn’t there in the first place: a timbre that corresponds — convincingly — with ALL the dynamics that I expect to find in all the registers of a quality (grand) piano.
> (Something which that rather uninformative Panis Angelicus example doesn’t tell us much about, I find.)
> 
> ‘Playability’ to me means that _every single choice or decision I make as a player is accurately reflected in how the instrument responds_. If a piano is capable of translating all of my intentions into a corresponding sound/timbre, then I call it ‘playable’ and then I can connect with it. This connection is key, for me. And I have it with the VintageD.
> ...


Hi Piet, I've been reading your impressions of the Hammersmith with interest, and as a Hammersmith Pro owner, was surprised at the problems you are having. I'm curious to know which sampled piano you had loaded to record your playing for the comparison demos. Did you use the same recorded MIDI file to play back on both the Vintage D & Hammersmith?


----------



## re-peat (Mar 25, 2016)

CGR,

I had them both loaded. Some fragments where played with the VintageD selected, others were played with the Hammersmith selected. (The pseudo-Iberian example, in the post above, was played with the VintageD selected, but several of the ones in the longer comparison on the previous page, were played first on The Hammersmith.)
The resulting midi-tracks were then copied over to the other instrument, with only minimal editing (to avoid distorting the relationship between the way I play and how these two pianos respond to it).

Actually, nearly all of the editing that took place, was done in favour of The Hammersmith: feeling that important colours in its palette are only accessible at extreme midi-velocities — both low and high —, I sometimes increased the dynamics of the recorded midi-data (i.o.w. I raised or lowered certain velocities) in order to trigger velocity layers which my playing, all by itself, had failed to trigger. Or, put much more simply: if I hadn't, for example, raised the velocities of those bass notes (after recording them), they would have sounded even weaker and duller then they do now.

_


----------



## CGR (Mar 25, 2016)

re-peat said:


> CGR,
> 
> I had them both loaded. Some fragments where played with the VintageD selected, others were played with the Hammersmith selected. (The pseudo-Iberian example, in the post above, was played with the VintageD selected, but several of the ones in the longer comparison on the previous page, were played first on The Hammersmith.)
> The resulting midi-tracks were then copied over to the other instrument, with only minimal editing (to avoid distorting the relationship between the way I play and how these two pianos respond to it).
> ...


That's interesting to know. The reason I asked was that whenever I record with one virtual piano (for example Ivory 2) and then play back the same MIDI file with The Hammersmith or another virtual piano, it doesn't translate well, and I almost always play in the piece again with the other piano. I never achieve a natural result editing the MIDI file afterwards. Also, I found the VEL>VOL setting very important in The Hammersmith, to achieve the right balance of how the samples and volume are mapped to velocity. Any setting from about 25 and above thinned the sound out for me with my setup (particularly with p & pp playing) and reducing this setting to around 21 really lifted the fullness and intimacy of the sound. I use a Yamaha CP4 Stage, and with the range of settings in The Hammersmith and carefully blending mics (eg. M49 Neumann close mics + Decca Tree mics) I can achieve a superb and dynamic playing experience and extremely realistic recorded sound. My background is 38 years playing acoustic pianos, and I own a large upright and small grand Richard Lipp piano, both built in 1924, and play them daily. I also own too many sampled/virtual pianos to mention! Just wanted to express my experience with The Hammersmith, because I believe it is one of the very best available.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 27, 2016)

CGR said:


> Just wanted to express my experience with The Hammersmith, because I believe it is one of the very best available.


Well, I am very pleased for you that you feel that way, but I disagree. In fact, the more rigorously I test The Hammersmith, the less I like it.
Been demoing various virtual pianos (12 sampled, 1 modeled) — as objectively as possible — in a short but challenging fragment of a Scarlatti sonata (Kk13), and The Hammersmith, I fear, turned out to be one of the weakest contenders. To my ears, anyway. And in this specific piece, that is.

I don’t doubt the possibility that in other, more Hammersmith-friendly material, the library might satisfy like few others, but in this particular test, it certainly didn’t manage to do so. Its lower velocity-layers sound thin and weak — as opposed to round and delicate — and, as I said before, there’s just not enough timbral differentiation across a large part of its dynamic range, despite its many velocity layers.
(If you listen to the example below, it sometimes almost even sounds as if The Hammersmith’s dynamics are suggested more with just volume changes, rather than with volume, energy and timbre. .)

Anyway, below are five of the 13 contenders. I’ve got versions with the IS Fazioli, XSample Steinway, VLabs Ravenscroft & Bechstein, OrangeTree Rosewood, Alicia's Keys, Pianoteq ModelD, Chocolate Audio Steinway as well. If there’s any interest, I can post those too.

*http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/SB_Examples/Scarlatti/VintageD_ScarlattiK13.mp3 (VintageD) *| *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/SB_Examples/Scarlatti/Hammersmith_ScarlattiK13.mp3 (Hammersmith) *| *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/SB_Examples/Scarlatti/QLPianos_Mix1_ScarlattiK13.mp3 (QL Pianos Steinway) *| *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/SB_Examples/Scarlatti/Ivory_AmericanD_ScarlattiK13.mp3 (Ivory AmericanD) *| *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/SB_Examples/Scarlatti/VlabsTrueKeys_American_ScarlattiK13.mp3 (VLabs TrueKeys Steinway)*

_


----------



## CGR (Mar 27, 2016)

re-peat said:


> Well, I am very pleased for you that you feel that way, but I disagree. In fact, the more rigorously I test The Hammersmith, the less I like it.
> Been demoing various virtual pianos (12 sampled, 1 modeled) — as objectively as possible — in a short but challenging fragment of a Scarlatti sonata (Kk13), and The Hammersmith, I fear, turned out to be one of the weakest contenders. To my ears, anyway. And in this specific piece, that is.
> 
> I don’t doubt the possibility that in other, more Hammersmith-friendly material, the library might satisfy like few others, but in this particular test, it certainly didn’t manage to do so. Its lower velocity-layers sound thin and weak — as opposed to round and delicate — and, as I said before, there’s just not enough timbral differentiation across a large part of its dynamic range, despite all of its many velocity layers.
> ...


I admire your approach and critical analysis, but I believe the reason that many serious pianists who are interested in virtual pianos (including for practicality/budget reasons) end up with a large collection is that there is no one sampled/virtual piano which is able to cover all applications, and if I were to throw Scarlatti sonatas at any of them, I'd save my frustrations and record the piece on a high quality, well regulated, voiced and tuned acoustic grand in a great studio with an experienced piano recording engineer. I've found that working with any sampled/virtual piano is an exercise in compromises - there is always something that grates, whether it be tone, voicing, stereo imaging and 'air', less than ideal pedalling response, playability/touch response etc. For example, I really enjoy playing my VI Labs Ravenscroft 275 - incredibly expressive, dynamic and responsive - but quite often when I'm listening back, it sounds 'too perfect' and a little sterile in comparison to hearing my same playing with The Hammersmith, which in most cases sounds more organic & alive to my ears. As you suggested, with certain material, The Hammersmith satisfies like no other virtual piano. So all things considered, I rate The Hammersmith very highly, and it's a virtual piano I find myself calling up more and more in my music productions.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 27, 2016)

Surprisingly, of the last five examples, I liked the QL best. It seemed to have the best balance of dynamics and resonance.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 27, 2016)

CGR said:


> (...) there is no one sampled/virtual piano which is able to cover all applications, (...). I've found that working with any sampled/virtual piano is an exercise in compromises (...)


I definitely agree with all of that, C. In fact, apart from a personal preference which makes us choose different instruments as favourites, I'm pretty sure we'd agree on most anything when it comes to virtual pianos.

_


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 27, 2016)

NYC Composer said:


> Surprisingly, of the last five examples, I liked the QL best. It seemed to have the best balance of dynamics and resonance.



I think I do too, although the Galaxy has a liveliness and the Chocolate audio has a body that I like.

Anyway, here is what all Scarlatti pianos _should_ sound like,
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1475374/Scarlatti%20%28D%29%3A%20Sonata%20In%20E%2C%20K%20380.wav (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/147 ... %20380.wav)

That is Horowitz playing his Steinway D.


----------



## tack (Mar 27, 2016)

Piet, the QL version has several subtle clicks throughout. Those aren't in the samples, are they? I mostly like the sound, though it's a touch flat (sounds like it's been low-passed). I hear a kind of scratchy brittleness in QL though that could either be from MP3 compression or due to sample denoising. (They sound very similar to me.) However, I don't hear that in the other versions, at least not to the same extent, which makes me less inclined to blame MP3 compression.

You might also share the AK version here, Piet. On TSB it really surprised me how well it did, and I see wasn't the only one.

The section between 17s and 30s really underlines the differences at the lower dynamics. The VintageD is subtle yet lively, while the Hammersmith is thin and shrill and seems to bruteforce itself through that section.

On the other hand, I've already made up my mind about VintageD years ago, and this isn't blinded. So how can we all not be biased in some way.


----------



## CGR (Apr 1, 2016)

tack said:


> Piet, the QL version has several subtle clicks throughout. Those aren't in the samples, are they? I mostly like the sound, though it's a touch flat (sounds like it's been low-passed). I hear a kind of scratchy brittleness in QL though that could either be from MP3 compression or due to sample denoising. (They sound very similar to me.) However, I don't hear that in the other versions, at least not to the same extent, which makes me less inclined to blame MP3 compression.
> 
> You might also share the AK version here, Piet. On TSB it really surprised me how well it did, and I see wasn't the only one.
> 
> ...


Here's a piece played by myself using The Hammersmith Pro. The audio file is as played. No velocity tweaking of the midi afterwards, just setting the Velocity Curve and VEL>VOL controls in The Hammersmith so they are optimised to my keyboard response and playing touch (Yamaha CP4 with triple sensor hammer action). Using the Neumann M49 close mics + Neumann KU-100 Binaural Head mics. Hall reverb & EQ applied within The Hammersmith, a subtle bit of tape saturation & compression within Logic 8, and bounced to a 192 kbps MP3. (had trouble uploading the full 4.9MB file, so it's an excerpt of the full piece. Let me know if you'd like to hear the full uncompressed WAV file). Hope you enjoy listening to it, and appreciating the Full Sustain sampling used in the Hammersmith.


----------



## CGR (Apr 1, 2016)

No luck uploading the 192 kbps file. Trying a 2MB 160 kbps version.

[AUDIOPLUS=http://vi-control.net/community/attachments/hammersmith_pro_demo_edit_160-mp3.5336/][/AUDIOPLUS]


----------



## reutunes (Apr 1, 2016)

Very interesting take on these different libraries. Coincidentally I actually compared and demo'd 6 different libraries in a section of The Samplecast podcast called "Sample Shootout" - the piano part starts at 17.20.


----------



## tack (Apr 2, 2016)

@CGR, what do you mean by "full sustain sampling"?

I mean I imagine this must be something other than just separate samples for pedal up and pedal down, which is fairly standard nowadays.


----------



## CGR (Apr 2, 2016)

tack said:


> @CGR, what do you mean by "full sustain sampling"?
> 
> I mean I imagine this must be something other than just separate samples for pedal up and pedal down, which is fairly standard nowadays.


Not sure if that was the correct term but what I mean is that playing the Hammersmith with the damper pedal triggers true , full length damper pedal sustain samples, unlike some other sampled pianos which morph separate sustain resonance samples into the pedal up samples. That method gives the ability for the developer to program re-pedaling and half pedaling, but never sounds like a real acoustic piano with the sustain pedal down, and sounds disjointed to my ears. I find it's more noticeable on listening back. 

A case in point was I recently recorded 5 short solo piano pieces, using the Galaxy 2 Vienna grand (Bosendorfer). The sampled piano was great to play - very responsive, dynamic etc. and I was pleased with what I was able to achieve with it. BUT, on listening back on our good quality home stereo, during the first track my wife commented that she'd love to hear it played on a real piano. She was able to pick it as not real almost immediately. This is why I think many sampled pianos can distort your judgement, because they are so involving and responsive
to play, and lead you to believe they are nailing the solo piano sound, but ultimately don't sound like a real piano to the listener. I'd include the Ivory 2 Steinway, which I own and have spent many hours with, in this category. 

The Hammersmith is one of the very few of the many sampled pianos I own and work with, that I'm confident to put up in exposed solo playing, and not feel nervous that someone will call it out as fake.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 2, 2016)

Only 2 atm but plan on Malmsjo GVI as the 3rd.
VGP 2 also by Art Vista.
For Dixieland, Barrelhouse and Ragtime (certain classical pieces) OrangeTree Rosewood Grand.
It has sostenuto pedalling and has the coolest dynamic tracking in the lowest octaves.
I do lots of left hand bass parts and its nice to have that level of control manually via velocity without DAW drawn curves.


----------



## Johnny (Apr 3, 2016)

tack said:


> Piet, the QL version has several subtle clicks throughout. Those aren't in the samples, are they? I mostly like the sound, though it's a touch flat (sounds like it's been low-passed). I hear a kind of scratchy brittleness in QL though that could either be from MP3 compression or due to sample denoising. (They sound very similar to me.) However, I don't hear that in the other versions, at least not to the same extent, which makes me less inclined to blame MP3 compression.
> 
> You might also share the AK version here, Piet. On TSB it really surprised me how well it did, and I see wasn't the only one.
> 
> ...


In regards to the popping, QL Pianos with all three microphones loaded sometimes, pops/clicks on me during the rendering process only. A simple reboot before bouncing always fixes the clicking issue for me; however, my computer also needs a hell of a lot more ram and it is really outdated. I assume that this issue would most likely not occur if you own newer technology than I do?


----------



## Johnny (Apr 3, 2016)

re-peat said:


> Well, I am very pleased for you that you feel that way, but I disagree. In fact, the more rigorously I test The Hammersmith, the less I like it.
> Been demoing various virtual pianos (12 sampled, 1 modeled) — as objectively as possible — in a short but challenging fragment of a Scarlatti sonata (Kk13), and The Hammersmith, I fear, turned out to be one of the weakest contenders. To my ears, anyway. And in this specific piece, that is.
> 
> I don’t doubt the possibility that in other, more Hammersmith-friendly material, the library might satisfy like few others, but in this particular test, it certainly didn’t manage to do so. Its lower velocity-layers sound thin and weak — as opposed to round and delicate — and, as I said before, there’s just not enough timbral differentiation across a large part of its dynamic range, despite its many velocity layers.
> ...


This is great!!! Sure, I would love to hear the Fazioli if it is not too much trouble? I really want to purchase one of the I.S. pianos soon, but I am still sitting on the fence between The 1908 Walnut Concert Grand or The Ebony Concert Grand Fazioli... The Fazioli just sounds like it has so much character on all of the demos- full, rich and warm!


----------



## Raindog (Apr 4, 2016)

Being a piano player myself I want to second Piet´s opinion about clean (and playable) and characterfull (but sometimes "unplayable") piano sample libraries. Playing piano sample libraries doesn´t feel right when the dynamics and their timbral changes are not like you would expect them to be on a real piano. Many libraries have technically excellent and smooth changes of dynamic layers but often the pp and ppp samples do sound like volume reduced mf samples. That means the volume is soft but the timbre is not like one would expect a pp or ppp sample to be. You won´t hear this in a rich arrangement but you definitely hear it in a smooth solo piece.

There is one library which I would nevertheless reccommend because the developers have done everything right with sampling the different timbral changes of a piano. This library is somewhat outdated and not mentioned very often. It´s the Pro Audio Vault Bluethner Model One. The basic samples are just excellent. The approach to modulate sympathetic resonance when the sustain pedal pressed is done via Impulse responses. You can modulate the basic sound with dozens of Impulse Responses derived from original solo piano recordings. A genious approach but the interface is a nightmare by modern standards. There is no soft pedal, no sostenuto, the adaption of the dynamic behaviour is done by loading different patches which all have a different dynamic response. I tried to convince mastermind Ernest Cholakis to update the piano in order to fit modern standards GUI-wise but I think it´s not on his top priority list.
It is the only sample library which still makes me smile happily when I play it (using a proper Keyboard which is a Kawai MP9000 in my case). It would be my piano for the lonely island (presuming that there is electricity on the island).

If you need a clean "all purpose piano" I would point you to the C7 Yamaha Grand piano from Acousticsample.com
It is a wonderful and tonally rich piano without any performance problems. It would be my choice for touring on the road. The other piano libraries from Acousticsamples are excellent as well but the C7 is the best all purpose piano library I came across (maybe the Grandeur from Galaxy is in the same region).

The Malmsjö is my character favourite but it is a special piano for special purposes.

Sorry for the lengthy post. Listen to the Bluethner examples on their website. It´s a gem.

best regards
Raindog


----------



## soniccouture (Apr 4, 2016)

tack said:


> @CGR
> I mean I imagine this must be something other than just separate samples for pedal up and pedal down, which is fairly standard nowadays.



In fact the majority of sampled pianos do not have samples for both pedal up and down - Vintage D, for example does not. Some do (I think QL does, for example), but they are the minority. Most use the pedal up sample and extend the envelope if the pedal is pressed.


----------



## Raindog (Apr 4, 2016)

It´s an important point which adds to realism as well. That´s why the Bluthner Sample library I mentioned above has different samples for pedal up and down.
I found a comparison on their website which nicely demonstrates what I meant with timbral changes when playing pp or ppp. They also included real recordings of artists playing chopin to have a comparison.

http://www.proaudiovault.com/bdmo-comparison.htm

Listen to the examples with quality headphones (on a computer loudspeaker even my outdated Kawai MP9000 sounds quite convincing)

Another comparison with the already mentioned (and great) Ivory Model D

http://www.proaudiovault.com/bdmo-ivory-comparison.htm

This is an example of the sound with sustain pedal pressed. I find the difference quite obvious even without using headphones.


----------



## tack (Apr 4, 2016)

soniccouture said:


> Vintage D, for example does not.


Indeed, I checked, you're right.



soniccouture said:


> Most use the pedal up sample and extend the envelope if the pedal is pressed.


But surely not _just _that. They must also layer (likely per-note) resonance tones. Ok, you can (and have) called that "faking it" but in exchange I imagine this opens the door to improved playability.

Meanwhile I have never thought that VintageD is lacking in the depth and detail of its sympathetic resonance while sustain is pressed, and I do have VI pianos with separate pedal up and down samples (most recently HZ Piano) to compare it with (now that I look closely).

On paper, the Hammersmith's 21 velocity layers is impressive, but I'm not able to reconcile that with harshness below p that I hear in some of the demos previously posted. In contrast, Vintage D with only 12 manages to be very expressive below p. Looking at the group editor, this accounts for only 3 layers, but the timbre feels right. The Hammersmith must have quite a few layers below p?

Maybe I just don't like the quality of the piano that was sampled for the Hammersmith.

Even if I did, without repedalling and half pedaling the Hammersmith and I just wouldn't get along.


----------



## alanb (Apr 4, 2016)

According to the SampleTekk website, their TBO has "93 unique samples" per note, comprised of "31 velocity layers pedal up, 31 pedal down and 31 release samples."

I believe that their TVBO is based on the same sample set as TBO, with lots of additional options. Perhaps Per (or anyone else) could jump in and explain exactly what “Real Pedalling” and “TimeVel Release Technology™” do.


----------



## CGR (Apr 4, 2016)

tack said:


> Indeed, I checked, you're right.
> 
> 
> But surely not _just _that. They must also layer (likely per-note) resonance tones. Ok, you can (and have) called that "faking it" but in exchange I imagine this opens the door to improved playability.
> ...


Although I don't own the Galaxy Vintage D, I do own the Galaxy 2 Vienna (Bosendorfer), so I'd guess it uses the sampling & programming techniques employed in the Vintage D (not sure, given the Vintage D is more recent). The amount of sustain resonance can be adjusted in the Galaxy 2 Vienna, which leads me to think they are separate samples of the resonances only which are morphed into the sound when you press the sustain pedal. No doubt this is great from a playing perspective (for re-pedalling & half pedalling) but it just doesn't SOUND convincing to me, when compared to how an acoustic grand piano resonates with the full damper pedal engaged, and to my ears its quite obvious, particularly when hearing it as a listener. The sustain resonances in The Hammersmith sound absolutely convincing to my ears. No wonder, given the way they were sampled.

A note on your comment about harshness below p on the Hammersmith: a critical aspect of the software is the VEL>VOL control and Velocity curve settings. Spending the time optimising these can turn a harsh/thinner tone into a much smoother, rounder tone in the softer velocities. I was amazed at the difference these settings made, in combination with choosing the mic combinations best suited to that tone. Let me know if you'd like to hear a short comparison of the difference the settings make.

I own 22 virtual pianos - the first being the PMI Bosendorfer 290 many years ago, and the most recent Soniccouture's The Hammersmith and the XLN Addictive Keys Studio Grand. When I listen back to my recordings with some of the earliest PMI and Sampletekk sampled pianos, which do have proper full-length pedal down samples, the realism of the resonances puts the "faking it" techniques used in far more recent sampled pianos to shame in my opinion. Playability is a whole other thing.

I guess the decision we need to make as pianists is: 
Do I want a playing experience that is extremely close to how an acoustic piano behaves, and has a dynamic, flexible, pleasing tone, or 
Am I more concerned about how convincing the recording sounds to the listener, and I'll work around the playability issues and quirks of the virtual piano?


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 5, 2016)

CGR said:


> I guess the decision we need to make as pianists is:
> Do I want a playing experience that is extremely close to how an acoustic piano behaves, and has a dynamic, flexible, pleasing tone, or
> Am I more concerned about how convincing the recording sounds to the listener, and I'll work around the playability issues and quirks of the virtual piano?



My main focus is always "when I play it does it inspire me to write?"

In my experience, the clients respond more to the emotion and intent to serve their picture (I hope) that I bring to my work than the specific sounds I use.


----------



## CGR (Apr 5, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> My main focus is always "when I play it does it inspire me to write?"
> 
> In my experience, the clients respond more to the emotion and intent to serve their picture (I hope) that I bring to my work than the specific sounds I use.


A very good point you've made there! I know of musicians who use one of the highly playable sampled pianos to compose with, and another one to render the audio file with to get the best final sound. I'd imagine the playing wouldn't always translate well to the 2nd piano, but a little MIDI & velocity tweaking could solve most issues.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 5, 2016)

But it isn't just the playability, it is the way it sounds when you play it. I can't really explain it but some just "speak to me" while others that are arguably better do not.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Apr 5, 2016)

A couple of days ago I bought from imperfect samples the Steinway walnut grand complete and I am very much of the opinion that it sounds great. Even in the very low dynamics it has this mellow nice tone which I find just gorgeos.


----------



## tack (Apr 5, 2016)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> A couple of days ago I bought from imperfect samples the Steinway walnut grand complete and I am very much of the opinion that it sounds great.


I see half pedalling in the list of features. Does it do repedalling and full/half pedal transitioning?

My main gripe with product pages on the myriad VI pianos is they go on and on about how awesome it sounds but so few actually talk about playability. That's one thing I will say about VI Labs: their product pages for their pianos are perfect. Absent this level of information, I just have to assume the piano sucks to play. And I already have a good number of great sounding, unplayable VI pianos.

Edit: Steinway walnut grand does _sound_ great though.


----------



## higgs (Apr 5, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> I just bought Cinesamples Piano in Blue and have to say I love it so far. It's got loads of Character so maybe better for certain things than others. I am now looking at Pianoteq and the Spitfire HZ Piano. Need more SSDs first though...


Jono! I heart the HZ Piano. SF made a very well thought out VI with that one. It's subtle, but you can hear the player rustling on the bench with the Super Soft patch. 

Because of this thread I auditioned (and subsequently bought) the Art Vista Malmsjö and VGP3 and couldn't be happier.

I've been auditioning the Piano in Blue demo tracks and I can't figure out if I love them or dislike them - but I don't hate them. The quiet passages in the tracks reveal lots of pedal w/ hiss. I'm a bit of a piano hack so please forgive my naiveté, but is that the compressed demo track or the sound of the VI that I'm hearing?

Great thread.


----------



## CGR (Apr 5, 2016)

higgs said:


> Because of this thread I auditioned (and subsequently bought) the Art Vista Malmsjö and VGP3 and couldn't be happier.


 Yes, the Malmsjö piano has a beautiful, unique character. Well worth checking out is the Sampletekk White Grand which I own and use often, and is also a Malmsjö Grand, but a brighter tone to the Art Vista Malmsjö.


----------



## Fleer (Apr 15, 2016)

CGR said:


> Yes, the Malmsjö piano has a beautiful, unique character. Well worth checking out is the Sampletekk White Grand which I own and use often, and is also a Malmsjö Grand, but a brighter tone to the Art Vista Malmsjö.


And its sibling White Sister. You can get them together as WG2 MkII.


----------



## Gregko (Jun 11, 2016)

Yes, I just bought the Malsjö piano and it is indeed beautiful!


----------



## owenave (Jun 11, 2016)

I ended up getting the Ravenscroft 275 Piano.... I love it. Couldn't be more happy.


----------

