# Most realistic piano libaries



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

As a composer that mostly works with the sound of the piano, I am always seeking for the most realistic sounding libaries. But its often times not just about the sound that makes a good libary, but also how realistic the dynamic is. 

During the last years I have tried a lot of samples. The first one I ever got was Galaxy2, and til this day it remains as one of my favorite libaries. Another one I got just recently that really fascinates me is the one from Ravenscroft. So far I consider these two the best I ever had, especially considering their prices and possibilities to edit the sound.

But, I still long to have more differnt high quality piano libaries, and would love to know your input 

Simon


----------



## Johnny (Dec 16, 2015)

Excellent! I'm in the same boat! I currently use Cinesamples Piano in Blue and QL Pianos which are great; however, I would like to expand my upon my color palette and try a few others as well. In previous piano threads, I've heard mention of the Garritan Abbey Road Studios CFX being one of the most realistic feeling; I've also heard mention of Imperfect Samples Fazioli Concert Grand being quite attractive? (Not to forget about the new HZ piano too!) I'm tempted to try out Spit Fire Audio's Gwilym Simcock Felt Piano and Imperfect's Fazioli and Walnut Grand myself? How about you guys?


----------



## Alatar (Dec 16, 2015)

My favourite is the Galaxy Vintage D.


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

Johnny, thanks for the input. You mentioned a few pianos I have to try yet. So far I tried the QL pianos, 8dio, truepian, vienna imperial, vienna boesendorfer and a few no name libaries. Though some sound not that bad, I often struggle with the unrealistic dynamic compared to a real piano. They[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.792969)] may be good for composers that dont record with the piano, but I need it as realistic as possible.[/COLOR]

True piano was very good from the dynamic, and for a size of 120 MB, it sounds really awesome. If interested, here are a few samples I made with these three pianos.

http://youtu.be/6ERMxzLE_cE (youtu.b) true piano

http://youtu.be/a9dMBOIy-m8 (youtu.b) ravenscroft

http://youtu.be/XSF4j19PmUQ (youtu.b) galaxy2


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

Alatar said:


> My favourite is the Galaxy Vintage D.


I mostly work with the Galaxy2 Boesendorfer.. use it since 12 years, and it still is one of the best ones


----------



## Virgil (Dec 16, 2015)

Have you tried Pianoteq 5? Probably the best dynamic you can get.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 16, 2015)

At first, you have to have a very good weighted keyboard! Yes, no?
Then, you have to adjust the velocity curve of the keyboard to the library what u are using/playing! Yes, no?
If you want the real feel you have to buy first the best weighted keyboard!
Just my 2 Cents!


----------



## tack (Dec 16, 2015)

What's more important: realistic sound, or realistic feel?

If _feel _is the most important, with vaguely passable sound, you'll do no better than Pianoteq, after which the next step is the real thing.

If you want to stay in the world of samples for the sonic realism, then the best combination of sound and feel in my opinion is the already-mentioned Vintage D. Vintage D has excellent dynamics. I have a light touch and my criticism with most libraries is my inability to be expressive between ppp and p, but I don't feel handcuffed with Vintage D.

It goes without saying that in any case you'll need a weighted controller that feels right to your fingers.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 16, 2015)

What keyboard you are using, Mr. tack? (And please don't tell me M-Audio e.t.c!)


----------



## tack (Dec 16, 2015)

germancomponist said:


> What keyboard you are using, Mr. tack? (And please don't ell me M-Audio e.t.c!)


My beloved and long-in-the-tooth Yamaha P80. What can I say, it was the best feeling keyboard at the time and my fingers have since become well connected with the weight of the keys.

I have a Kawai VPC1 on order though.


----------



## lumcas (Dec 16, 2015)

Here we go again...

+1 on vintage D, but I also love Garritan CFX and Ivory II American D


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 16, 2015)

I have had the P 80, too. A great tool!


----------



## EvilDragon (Dec 16, 2015)

Virgil said:


> Have you tried Pianoteq 5? Probably the best dynamic you can get.



This.

"Most realistic" as in piano behaviour and nuances, NOTHING out there beats Pianoteq. Samples are just that - samples, snapshots of a single sound in time. You can never really model piano's behaviour with just samples, no matter how much you close mic them.


----------



## Virgil (Dec 16, 2015)

tack said:


> If _feel _is the most important, with vaguely passable sound, you'll do no better than Pianoteq


"Vaguely passable sound"? You are kidding me.


----------



## tack (Dec 16, 2015)

Virgil said:


> "Vaguely passable sound"? You are kidding me.


Well, it's just one man's opinion, but no, I'm not kidding you. I find the middle/mid-high registers really unappealing. It's in the Uncanny Valley for piano. It's close, but something just doesn't seem right about it in a synthetic kind of way. My ear becomes accustomed to it after a few weeks of exclusivity, but when I fire up Vintage D (or recently HZ Piano), I fall in love with the sound of a piano all over again.

I just have Pianoteq Stage though. I've heard of people doing wonders with patient, determined customization using Pianoteq Pro.


----------



## tack (Dec 16, 2015)

germancomponist said:


> I have had the P 80, too. A great tool!


It really is. I am amazed at how well the feel holds up to today's offerings at the same price range. Except for the discrete sustain pedal. So I use a MIDI Solutions pedal controller with a continuous Roland pedal instead. I'm looking forward to being able to shed this kludge when my VPC1 arrives.


----------



## d.healey (Dec 16, 2015)

+1 for pianoteq, and behind that true pianos.


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

Virgil said:


> Have you tried Pianoteq 5? Probably the best dynamic you can get.


I havent, because the sound didnt convince me so far


----------



## Luke W (Dec 16, 2015)

Ivory II American D.


----------



## tokatila (Dec 16, 2015)

VI Labs Ravenscroft 275. Currently on sale -30%.


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

germancomponist said:


> At first, you have to have a very good weighted keyboard! Yes, no?
> Then, you have to adjust the velocity curve of the keyboard to the library what u are using/playing! Yes, no?
> If you want the real feel you have to buy first the best weighted keyboard!
> Just my 2 Cents!



Very true. I work with the kawai mp9500, very real weighted, just like a real grandpiano. Problem often is that despite the edit of the velocity, the all over dynamic is not always achievable with some libaries. Maybe it sounds great with the higher tones, but not at the same time with the lower ones, as example.


----------



## Vik (Dec 16, 2015)

I have Ivory II American D and really like it.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 16, 2015)

Simon Daum said:


> Very true. I work with the kawai mp9500, very real weighted, just like a real grandpiano. Problem often is that despite the edit of the velocity, the all over dynamic is not always achievable with some libaries. Maybe it sounds great with the higher tones, but not at the same time with the lower ones, as example.


Simon,
The Kawai MP series has the highest resolution in velocity output of all weighted piano controllers, together with the old Kurzweil MIDIBOARD. Both of them use impact sensors. The Art Vista Virtual Grand Piano was created using the Kawai MP9000, and has a perfectly calibrated velocity response for this controller (1-127). It also has calibrated velocity response presets for a number of other keybeds.


----------



## Johnny (Dec 16, 2015)

Simon Daum said:


> Johnny, thanks for the input. You mentioned a few pianos I have to try yet. So far I tried the QL pianos, 8dio, truepian, vienna imperial, vienna boesendorfer and a few no name libaries. Though some sound not that bad, I often struggle with the unrealistic dynamic compared to a real piano. They[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.792969)] may be good for composers that dont record with the piano, but I need it as realistic as possible.[/COLOR]
> 
> True piano was very good from the dynamic, and for a size of 120 MB, it sounds really awesome. If interested, here are a few samples I made with these three pianos.
> 
> ...


Wow! Great work!! Right away the Galaxy 2 grabbed my ears because of its intimate sound. I really love it when piano libraries deliver the hammer sound in the upper register- as most real pianos often show prominence of hammer action in that upper range. Some great suggestions here! I'll definitely have to check Piano tech as well, as it seems to pull a lot of weight here within this community! Thank you everybody!


----------



## Johnny (Dec 16, 2015)

Simon Daum said:


> Johnny, thanks for the input. You mentioned a few pianos I have to try yet. So far I tried the QL pianos, 8dio, truepian, vienna imperial, vienna boesendorfer and a few no name libaries. Though some sound not that bad, I often struggle with the unrealistic dynamic compared to a real piano. They[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.792969)] may be good for composers that dont record with the piano, but I need it as realistic as possible.[/COLOR]
> 
> True piano was very good from the dynamic, and for a size of 120 MB, it sounds really awesome. If interested, here are a few samples I made with these three pianos.
> 
> ...


Wow, the Ravenscroft equally sure has a great ambience to it!


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Dec 16, 2015)

Did you try any acoustic grand piano? Nothing beats the real thing, you know...

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Johnny (Dec 16, 2015)

Simon Daum said:


> Johnny, thanks for the input. You mentioned a few pianos I have to try yet. So far I tried the QL pianos, 8dio, truepian, vienna imperial, vienna boesendorfer and a few no name libaries. Though some sound not that bad, I often struggle with the unrealistic dynamic compared to a real piano. They[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.792969)] may be good for composers that dont record with the piano, but I need it as realistic as possible.[/COLOR]
> 
> True piano was very good from the dynamic, and for a size of 120 MB, it sounds really awesome. If interested, here are a few samples I made with these three pianos.
> 
> ...


I am by no means a pianist, (so please feel free to laugh at my quantization skills... ; p) I am actually a drummer, but here is my QL Bösendorfer 290 test; and secondly, for those whom are curious? Cinesamples Piano in Blue


----------



## EvilDragon (Dec 16, 2015)

Simon Daum said:


> I havent, because the sound didnt convince me so far



Well, your loss. The sound is nothing short of spectacular, really.


----------



## feck (Dec 16, 2015)

Vienna Imperial, Garritan CFX, Production Voices C7, Ravenscroft. Those 4 cover just about every grand piano base in my opinion.


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 16, 2015)

EvilDragon said:


> Well, your loss. The sound is nothing short of spectacular, really.



I am now so intrigued. I will have to check this out. Thanks.


----------



## Living Fossil (Dec 16, 2015)

Luke W said:


> Ivory II American D.



+1

I was looking for a new piano library some weeks ago and after listening to lots of demos i decided to go with the ivory II American D.
Its sound, its dynamic range and presence is fantastic.
However, as in real life, there are lots of different sounding pianos which all have their special charme, so i guess you should judge by your ears.


----------



## Johnny (Dec 16, 2015)

lumcas said:


> Here we go again...
> 
> +1 on vintage D, but I also love Garritan CFX and Ivory II American D


Man... Vintage D... I just checked it out, extremely beautiful!! Great suggestion!!


----------



## Ryan99 (Dec 16, 2015)

My favorite is Ivory II American D. Synthogy has a sale right now, where you could buy one of their packages and get the American D for free.


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

Vik said:


> I have Ivory II American D and really like it.


I heard this piano gets used by a few professionals, but that some editing is neccesary to make it sound perfect.. but I never tried that one


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

Hans Adamson said:


> Simon,
> The Kawai MP series has the highest resolution in velocity output of all weighted piano controllers, together with the old Kurzweil MIDIBOARD. Both of them use impact sensors. The Art Vista Virtual Grand Piano was created using the Kawai MP9000, and has a p
> 
> 
> ...



Hans. Thanks so much for that input, I will have to check that piano


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

Johnny said:


> Wow! Great work!! Right away the Galaxy 2 grabbed my ears because of its intimate sound. I really love it when piano libraries deliver the hammer sound in the upper register- as most real pianos often show prominence of hammer action in that upper range. Some great suggestions here! I'll definitely have to check Piano tech as well, as it seems to pull a lot of weight here within this community! Thank you everybody!


Yeah, the Galaxy2 also has the great advantage that you can edit the sound quite a bit, and with it make it very unique, even create pads etc...


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> Did you try any acoustic grand piano? Nothing beats the real thing, you know...
> 
> - Jerome Vonhögen


That is true.. Slr far no software can beat the real thin, in my view. Guess its just a question of money and possibility.


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 16, 2015)

EvilDragon said:


> Well, your loss. The sound is nothing short of spectacular, really.



I really should try, but guess its alse a very individual taste. The demos didnt convince me so far, but of course it always could be different once I play it on my system


----------



## maxime77 (Dec 17, 2015)

I really like the sound of the Imperfect Samples White Baby (perspective 2 with some reverb)—it sounds between a vertical and a grand piano. However, I'm not a huge fan of its playability.


----------



## Simon Daum (Dec 17, 2015)

maxime77 said:


> I really like the sound of the Imperfect Samples White Baby (perspective 2 with some reverb)—it sounds between a vertical and a grand piano. However, I'm not a huge fan of its playability.


Need to check that one ... but yes, playability is very vital when recording with a stage piano.


----------



## AllanH (Dec 17, 2015)

My favorite remains Pianoteq. Incredible sound and by far the most playable in my experience. I have the standard version and have changed the D4 model slightly. I also have the Garritan CFX, which also like. If it wasn't for the missing vibration i the fingers, it would have been fooled that I'm sitting in front of a huge and powerful Grand. I have several other Pianos, but those are the two that I actually play.


----------



## mgpqa1 (Dec 17, 2015)

No love for Soniccouture's The Hammersmith? The other two piano libraries I own are Cinesamples' Piano in Blue and Pianoteq 5. The piano is my primary instrument and in terms of playability Pianoteq is my favorite, but I find myself loading up The Hammersmith for its sound.


----------



## Smikes77 (Dec 17, 2015)

I never went for the pianoteq sound either. I was rather spoilt for many years playing amazing pianos so maybe that's why.


----------



## EvilDragon (Dec 17, 2015)

...which is exactly why not ONE sample library ever felt right to me, no matter what the velocity curve was. Pianoteq has hit home in that regard, it responds exactly as a real piano does, which no sample library can really truly do.


----------



## Jan16 (Dec 17, 2015)

Pianoteq is my favorite as well, although nothing can substitute for a real, good acoustic grand.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 17, 2015)

May I humbly submit our *Pearl Concert Grand*, currently on sale for $89?  I am ultra-biased but I have put away all my piano libraries since developing it... it's very versatile with a lovely touch and four distinct mics. Our users love i ttoo!


----------



## Zhao Shen (Dec 17, 2015)

zircon_st said:


> May I humbly submit our *Pearl Concert Grand*, currently on sale for $89?  I am ultra-biased but I have put away all my piano libraries since developing it... it's very versatile with a lovely touch and four distinct mics. Our users love i ttoo!


Don't have this, but it looks and sounds absolutely gorgeous... I'd go for it if I was looking for a piano.


----------



## Smikes77 (Dec 17, 2015)

zircon_st said:


> May I humbly submit our *Pearl Concert Grand*, currently on sale for $89?  I am ultra-biased but I have put away all my piano libraries since developing it... it's very versatile with a lovely touch and four distinct mics. Our users love i ttoo!



This sounds really good. I'm going to have a proper listen on my studio speakers later.


----------



## tack (Dec 17, 2015)

zircon_st said:


> May I humbly submit our *Pearl Concert Grand*, currently on sale for $89?  I am ultra-biased but I have put away all my piano libraries since developing it... it's very versatile with a lovely touch and four distinct mics. Our users love i ttoo!


This one was on my to-fetch list, I recall, because of our exchange on the announcement thread about repedalling. So I picked it up a couple hours ago, and unfortunately my initial impressions after 15 minutes are not altogether favorable.

I hit record while I was playing around. I'll clean it up and put up a video later tonight detailing my criticisms.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 17, 2015)

I take all feedback very seriously and work hard to create great updates - by all means let me know what issues you have so we can address them! I just ask that you make sure you know all the advanced features and settings available in case your issue is already addressed.


----------



## dan1 (Dec 17, 2015)

Ivory II
Vienna Imperial
QL Pianos
The Grand 3
Ravenscroft
Pianoteq
TruePianos
Garritan CFX
Production Voices C7
Piano in Blue
Imperfect Fazioli
Pearl Concert Grand
8dio 1901/1928/1969
Spitfire HZP / Felt
Vintage D
Alicia's Keys
The Gentleman
The Giant

missed anything?
my pick is Pearl


----------



## Smikes77 (Dec 17, 2015)

tack said:


> This one was on my to-fetch list, I recall, because of our exchange on the announcement thread about repedalling. So I picked it up a couple hours ago, and unfortunately my initial impressions after 15 minutes are not altogether favorable.
> 
> I hit record while I was playing around. I'll clean it up and put up a video later tonight detailing my criticisms.



I would be very interested. Please do post. This library is so far holding my interest.


----------



## Smikes77 (Dec 17, 2015)

dan1 said:


> Ivory II
> Vienna Imperial
> QL Pianos
> The Grand 3
> ...



Please put pearl at the top then


----------



## tack (Dec 17, 2015)

Smikes77 said:


> I would be very interested. Please do post. This library is so far holding my interest.


I just recorded a 43 minute screencast. A nervous rambling, I think. Anyway it will take me a good chunk of time to upload it. I'll post the link here when it's done.


----------



## tack (Dec 17, 2015)

The 720p version is finally up. Higher resolutions will become available as YouTube processes them, but I figure the 720p version is probably good enough for audio comparisons. I encourage you to watch the highest resolution option your system/bandwidth is capable of.

So these were my initial impressions after the first hour with Pearl Concert Grand. You may not share my pedantry, which is probably a good thing. If after my video you're on the fence, I say go for it. At $89 USD, the library is squarely in impulse buy territory.

Please do let me know if any mistakes or incorrect observations and I'll be sure to annotate the video accordingly.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Dec 18, 2015)

Wow, this is very thorough - and helpful!I would love to talk about & respond to some of the issues you mentioned, as I think the discussion is relevant to the topic of sampled pianos in general.

Going out of order a bit, I wanted to start with the issue of noise. Noise is a very difficult thing to deal with when creating sample libraries - ESPECIALLY when recording in a hall, and when recording quiet samples. Even with pristine, top-of-the-line digital equipment, recording a piano from even a close position will usually mean a noise floor that approaches the volume of the source audio itself.

In the context of a normal performance recording this isn't an issue. You have one noise floor for however many notes the pianist plays. But with samples, playing two voices effectively doubles the noise floor - playing five, ten, twenty, or more, as demonstrated in the video, multiplies the noise floor. So even with *significant* surgical noise reduction with tools like Izotope RX, we're fighting with a multiplier of up to 20x or more (now add multiple mics in the mix...) 

Micing and room also makes a huge difference. Pearl's mic perspectives are airy to begin with. Recording a piano in a smaller hall, with closer mic positions, will of course result in less noise. Note that our Pedal position (which is very close!) has much less noise. It's another tradeoff: a more true concert perspective in exchange for grappling with a lower signal:noise ratio.

You mentioned a ringiness or grittiness in the mid-highs and I think that ties into noise as well. Since noise removal is unavoidable, and most noise removal is spectral in nature as opposed to a simple noise gate (which is unusable for sustained material like a piano), there is usually a very small degree of artifacting that occurs. Even with the best tools + offline rendering, it's another tradeoff we have to make. 

It's easy enough to remove all background noise in a sample, but the cost of doing so is adding artifacts and (usually) sucking the life out of the samples. So it's a balancing game, and one that is again particularly hard with very quiet samples in a hall. Whether or not the amount of noise is problematic depends on the type of music you're playing and the context - I really do use Pearl anytime I need a virtual piano, and for *me* it has never been a problem. Our demos don't use any additional noise processing either, and I think they do sound relatively clean.

... But with that being said, would be worth another pass on noise to see if we can strike an even better balance? Yes - it's something I'll look at for v1.4.

Now half-pedaling... seeing the comparison with Vintage D (which I don't own) was illuminating. Just hearing the audio gave me some insight on how we can better implement a continuous curve depending on the CC input. My own sustain pedal is not continuous - it's a standard boolean on/off design. Which, I should at least mention (in my defense!) is the standard, both in the GM spec and among most of the most popular sustain pedal models. I think that's probably why a lot of libraries don't do it: a relatively small % of customers can use that feature.

... But again, with that being said, it's something that can (and will) be fixed. 

Repedaling is another interesting topic. Hearing you describe the behavior you expected and comparing with another library you liked was very helpful indeed. What will likely make sense for Pearl is having two repedaling modes to choose from: our existing one, and one that does not 'hold' the note but simply processes the dynamics smoothly. This relates to the half-pedal scripting too.

The pedal release 'chirp' is again, I think related to your sustain pedal being continuous. I believe it should not be a difficult fix.

Anyway, the issues you raised and points you made are all fair (and several are not unique to Pearl, as you've also pointed out, but common among many piano libraries.) I think we can address these to a large degree in a free update, as part of an ongoing commitment to continually support + enhance our instruments. At the same time I do stand behind Pearl as it is now. Simon and I sought to capture a truly beautiful, playable tone and took great care in editing, processing & programming to preserve that tone. I think that is what makes Pearl really shine, and with constructive feedback like yours, it will only get better.


----------



## EvilDragon (Dec 18, 2015)

zircon_st said:


> But with samples, playing two voices effectively doubles the noise floor - playing five, ten, twenty, or more, as demonstrated in the video, multiplies the noise floor.



This is exactly why samples can never REALLY win vs Pianoteq. Just IMHO.

You can love the sound of samples, but real pianos just don't do that kind of thing. Nor Pianoteq


----------



## Monkberry (Dec 18, 2015)

Another fan of Pianoteq here. It sits well in a mix and has some great tools under the hood when you get to the pro version. I don't think you can answer the op's query with one choice as there is so much disparity in real pianos from one manufacturer to another. I'd say start with a well-rounded library and add to it as necessary. I think Pianoteq fits that description nicely.


----------



## Monkberry (Dec 18, 2015)

I should also mention I bought Pearl shortly after it was released and think it's a beautifully-sampled piano. You can never have too many choices when the muse comes calling.


----------



## evilantal (Dec 18, 2015)

For me it's Pianoteq 5 Standard (exclusively when playing live), Imperfect Steinway, Piano in Blue. Played through a Kawai stage piano.


----------



## AllanH (Dec 18, 2015)

evilantal said:


> For me it's Pianoteq 5 Standard (exclusively when playing live), Imperfect Steinway, Piano in Blue. Played through a Kawai stage piano.



This reminded me, even though it's slightly off topic: the sampled Kawai Shigeru in the CA97 is stunning and incredibly playable! That's a bit less portable than a VST, but anyway


----------



## marcy (Dec 18, 2015)

I've also been working with QL Piano and found it not bad, i just today bought the Hans Zimmer piano still downloading, When it finishes ill update u on the sound of it.


----------



## tack (Dec 18, 2015)

zircon_st said:


> Wow, this is very thorough - and helpful!I would love to talk about & respond to some of the issues you mentioned, as I think the discussion is relevant to the topic of sampled pianos in general.



And wow back. Excellent response! I wish all developers had this kind of attitude in the face of criticism. How refreshing. 




zircon_st said:


> But with samples, playing two voices effectively doubles the noise floor - playing five, ten, twenty, or more, as demonstrated in the video, multiplies the noise floor. So even with *significant* surgical noise reduction with tools like Izotope RX, we're fighting with a multiplier of up to 20x or more (now add multiple mics in the mix...)


Indeed. Any air or rumble in the samples quickly becomes a problem. What I hoped to show in my video is that this is a legitimate problem in real performances. Especially for close mic samples, IMO great care must be taken to manage this. Samples need to be very meticulously curated. My intuition is that if you recorded 10 RRs for each note, you would throw away 7 or 8 of them just for quality control reasons.

But I don't know how my intuition maps to reality since I've never sampled a piano -- or anything. All I can do is compare different products.

Vintage D has _very_ clean samples. But if you listen to the raw samples without any reverb, it's clear why: the samples are _extremely_ dry. I don't really hear any early reflections. Maybe faintly, but it's more likely that's echo within the piano body itself. But nor do the samples sound processed.

But then the philosophy is quite different. You get one close, very dry mic position, and it's up to you to sculpt the sound. In contrast, the Pearl Concert Grand gives you several options, and capturing the environment is a product goal.

Comparing then to my recently acquired HZ Piano, which, since recorded in Air Studios, is very much about capturing the room, may be be more appropriate. Of course, the price difference makes these two pianos hard to compare fairly. But I mention it because it shows what _can_ be done with the same recording philosophy.

With HZ Piano, the close and mid mic perspectives have a very low noise floor. Much, much lower than Pearl. To the point that I don't hear any problematic air buildup in these mic perspectives. Nor, in fact, do I hear any of that "gritty artifacting" I pointed out so frequently. (I definitely hear occasional frustrating room clicks and clacks though. Sigh.) Maybe the HZ Piano samples didn't undergo any noise reduction. Or maybe that quality I find unpleasant isn't an artifact of noise reduction. Even the tree mic in HZ Piano does reasonably well in comparison. The noise floor is very clearly higher, but multiple repetitions don't build up quite as fast as I'd expect given the noise floor. Maybe there is some programming trickery going on there.

The other thing worth mentioning is that with Pearl, not all samples are equally problematic. For example, I mentioned A4 (where C4 is middle C) in the video. One of the RRs has not just air, but a low rumble, to the point that 4 or 5 repetitions of A4 sounds like a thunderstorm is brewing.

This makes a repetition much, much worse than the B4 just beside it, for example. In fact, if the entire piano behaved like that B4, I'd have a lot less to complain about indeed. 



zircon_st said:


> You mentioned a ringiness or grittiness in the mid-highs and I think that ties into noise as well. Since noise removal is unavoidable, and most noise removal is spectral in nature as opposed to a simple noise gate (which is unusable for sustained material like a piano), there is usually a very small degree of artifacting that occurs. Even with the best tools + offline rendering, it's another tradeoff we have to make.


It's an interesting thought. Would you be able to share the unprocessed pedal-down samples for C#4 (just above middle C)? I'd love to compare what I hear to the raw, unprocessed sound.




zircon_st said:


> Which, I should at least mention (in my defense!) is the standard, both in the GM spec and among most of the most popular sustain pedal models. I think that's probably why a lot of libraries don't do it: a relatively small % of customers can use that feature.


Well, I guess there are those people who want to use a MIDI controller to trigger piano samples, and there are those people that want to play a piano -- or try to convince ourselves that we are, anyway. 




zircon_st said:


> Repedaling is another interesting topic. Hearing you describe the behavior you expected and comparing with another library you liked was very helpful indeed.


I'm glad that part made sense. I wasn't sure when I was rambling on about it. 

I was watching the video this morning after I uploaded it and I noticed something I didn't spot when I was recording, which must be a bug. Jump to 27:59 and take a look. I spent some time there trying to figure out why the pedal tone was dying off. I fiddled around with the note catch time and half pedal time until I was satisfied, but I didn't notice something crucial: I was clearly holding the note well after I had repedalled and had the sustain pedal fully pressed. Sure, I did repedal while in the midst of pressing the Bb2 but I did hold that note until I had finished repedalling (and ditto for the Eb1 and Eb2 octave that you can't see on the screen), so the half pedal logic should not have applied at all.

More generally, it looks like the logic to decide how to decay a note on release (half pedal or not) is based on what the sustain pedal was doing when the note was _pressed_, and not, as it should, when it was _released_.

(Looking back over the video again, I think this bug explains quite a number of issues I had with notes vanishing or things not feeling as rich and resonant as I expected.)




zircon_st said:


> The pedal release 'chirp' is again, I think related to your sustain pedal being continuous. I believe it should not be a difficult fix.


I noticed this went away after I turned the pedal noise off. So it may be one of those "features" 




zircon_st said:


> At the same time I do stand behind Pearl as it is now. Simon and I sought to capture a truly beautiful, playable tone and took great care in editing, processing & programming to preserve that tone. I think that is what makes Pearl really shine, and with constructive feedback like yours, it will only get better.


Thanks for taking the time to watch the video and post an excellent reply. It truly is impressive. I do agree the tone of the piano is wonderful. I'm looking forward to version 1.4!


----------

