# Ivory Piano vs Pianoteq - Steinway D



## Aleela (May 5, 2019)

Which Steinway D do you think is the best? Ivory or Pianoteq?


----------



## Living Fossil (May 5, 2019)

Ivory sounds like a real piano, Pianoteq sounds like pianoteq.


----------



## Sean (May 5, 2019)

Pianoteq is pretty playable but does not sound as good as pretty much any sampled library. I personally think Pianoteq sounds pretty bad and I don't really get the hype around it.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

Sean said:


> but does not sound as good as pretty much any sampled library.



Incorrect.


----------



## Sean (May 5, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> Incorrect.


I have yet to hear a sampled library that sounds worse than Pianoteq but I'm sure they exist


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

Due to EvilDragon's and other's many raving reviews about Pianoteq, I finally broke down and bought it last year, but I don't really get along with the tone from it either. I hear what everyone is saying as to being a very playable and expressive instrument, but there is still a fakeness to it that I hear and it bugs me. I'm still going to follow it and try to use it and see if I can get more out of it over time, but generally I end up reaching for something else most of the time. Pianoteq has some interesting abilities to create strange piano-ish sounds...which has some usefulness also. I think probably in a mix it sounds quite fine also and the playability of it might shine in that case.


----------



## sostenuto (May 5, 2019)

Only IvoryII Italian Grand here and everything gets measured against it ...... f_or mainstream needs._
Many other fine VI Grands for specific situations and they meet those needs well.
Have Demo'd Pianoteq over many years and have not yet found it _superior_ to sampled libraries.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

Sean said:


> I have yet to hear a sampled library that sounds worse than Pianoteq but I'm sure they exist



The noise buildup in Piano In Blue was quite ridiculous before they had another noise reduction pass on it. Even then, it's still there and it's annoying.


----------



## keepitsimple (May 5, 2019)

Without adding to the fire of the usually heated pianoteq vs sampled debate, i suggest:

- Download the demo of Pianoteq and see if you like the sound. 

- Test Ivory here: https://account.bestservice.com/try-sound/session_booking.html


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

Ivory II is still on sale, yes?


----------



## keepitsimple (May 5, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> Ivory II is still on sale, yes?


Yes, i just wish they break up those bundles and offer the studio grands individually.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

poetd said:


> I think Pianoteq is suited if you have some sound design skills.
> 
> I picked it up, but didn't really get along with any of the stock sounds.
> 
> ...



maybe you guys can share some of your lovely pianoteq presets ?


----------



## Sean (May 5, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> The noise buildup in Piano In Blue was quite ridiculous before they had another noise reduction pass on it. Even then, it's still there and it's annoying.


Haven't used that one, but I have NI Grandeur, Noire, Maverick, Ravenscroft, and all the Addictive Keys and they all sound much better than Pianoteq. Pianoteq's low end is especially bad, its mid to high range is ok.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

Well, I disagree there. Low end rumble is something Pianoteq does better than any sample library. Especially when you press that sustain pedal and keep on pounding.


----------



## Robert_G (May 5, 2019)

Anyone want to compare the Ivory II concert d and VSL concert d?


----------



## Sean (May 5, 2019)

I would love to be convinced otherwise as I really do like the concept of Pianoteq but when I tried to use it it just sounded very bad on all the presets. (Granted I did not try every preset since there were so many but I tried a lot) Would love to hear other people's creations with it to see what I might be doing wrong


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> Well, I disagree there. Low end rumble is something Pianoteq does better than any sample library. Especially when you press that sustain pedal and keep on pounding.



This is where both Pianoteq and TruePianos do really shine. Because they are modeled, they do much smarter stuff in terms of how different sustained keys interact with each other in upper harmonics and resonate against each other. A lot of interesting stuff happens in a real piano when you have the sustain pedal down and most sample libraries do not capture that at all. There is truth here and I can hear it. Especially if you use some chord extensions, (9th, 11th, etc.) and with sustain engaged...sounds wonderful and sample pianos sound dead. No argument.

But I agree with the other people that basic tone, the attack..something about it is not quite there, that bugs me more than the good stuff impresses. I really more often would rather play the sampled stuff. Actually this will really fire up some people but I prefer the sound of TruePianos. It combines some sampling with modeling and personally I find it more satisfactory to play.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

Robert_G said:


> Anyone want to compare the Ivory II concert d and VSL concert d?



Do some googling about the VSL pianos. At least one of them is known to have some bad tuning. Otherwise they are supposed to be awesome. Their CFX is probably great. The Garritan CFX is also raved about a lot.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 5, 2019)

Sean said:


> I would love to be convinced otherwise as I really do like the concept of Pianoteq but when I tried to use it it just sounded very bad on all the presets. (Granted I did not try every preset since there were so many but I tried a lot) Would love to hear other people's creations with it to see what I might be doing wrong



If it's not about creating interesting sounds or a meditation about the isolated low end rumble, there isn't much to say. Pianoteq simply does not sound like a real piano.
Either you hear it or you don't hear it.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

We could also say that sample libraries don't behave like a real piano. And really, they don't, and they never will. Nor do they sound like a real piano, because a real piano doesn't layer a snapshot upon a snapshot of a particular sound recorded in a particular time over and over itself. Either you hear it or you don't hear it.

See? It works both ways.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

Here we go....

I say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

Piano is my main instrument and I have been formally trained to play piano for about 7 years, then explored stuff out of school on my own. Now I'm not a world class pianist like <insert famous name here>, but I do know the instrument and have played a bunch of different pianos and uprights (my fav is Bösendorfer 290). I know how a piano sounds. Pianoteq definitely sounds like _a piano._ In fact, like so many different pianos. And I can make my own if I want to.

But kudos for removing your post, Living Fossil, I guess.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

hey, I agree with Living Fossil though. And I agree with you Evil Dragon about the modeling aspects I described. You are both right in my opinion. I have a 7 foot Mason and Hamlin grand piano in my living room which I play on a regular basis and played many other pianos for almost 50 years before that, and I can say with certainty that I agree with the people that don't think pianoteq always sounds like a real piano. Well then I have played some uprights that didn't sound like a _real_ piano too! haha


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

One could say an upright is half of a piano placed in the wrong direction, haha.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

But I can also say that sometimes its enjoyable to play true pianos (and maybe pIanoteq if I get some better presets), but sometimes I rather play and hear the sampled one..it just depends on the situation and I do find myself reaching for the ravenscoft more often then not.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

I think the only sample library that made me inspired to just PLAY it rather than be annoyed about uneven velocity layers or crap response to my input was Noire... But even that was mainly because of the Particles engine, heh...


----------



## Living Fossil (May 5, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> I know how a piano sounds. Pianoteq definitely sounds like _a piano._



I guess it's pointless to continue...
There is a very distinct fakeness in the sound. If you don't hear that, it's ok for you. But it doesn't make the fakeness disappear. And those people, who can hear it, are not hearing it because they are too stupid not to hear it but because they are able to perceive it.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

I never said anyone's stupid because of something they're hearing or not.

But, "a very distinct fakeness" doesn't really say anything. It's as subjective as it can be. How about trying to formulate that in some more objectively quantifiable terms? Audio examples welcome.


Also, sometimes I do wonder how would all of us fare in a double blind test...


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

I am annoyed by ALL software pianos for the same reason. At this point I simply do not sit down and tinker around on a software piano at all...my M&H upstairs is about a thousand times more inspiring and enjoyable to play. But that is a luxury I know most people don't have, myself included until semi recently..so I get it. But anyway that's where I think its at right now, there is simply no perfect software piano yet. They all have some pros and cons and a lot will depend on the individual and what they want to hear as to which ones is the right fit.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

I will say this however, in terms of laying down some piano mixed in with orchestra or something like that, I will take a good sampled one any day over modeled. I'm with Living Fossil on that one, I think pianoteq still misses the mark a little bit, notwithstanding that the velocity scaling is perfectly modeled, and the sympathetic resonances are all happening between which notes you're playing and all the rest... 

Play one note lines and it falls flat to me also...it sounds "fake". The sampled ones sound more real because they are actual recordings of real pianos. The sampled ones do miss out, however, on some of these modeled features and a discriminating player can tell they are missing from sampled also.

I think either solution will sound fine if its buried deep in a mix, but when it comes to the front...I would personally prefer sampled. but to each their own...


----------



## Living Fossil (May 5, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> How about trying to formulate that in some more objectively quantifiable terms? Audio examples welcome.



There are several audio examples with Pianoteq sounds. No need for more...
To demand from somebody to formulate details of sounds in "objectively quantifiable terms" is a strawman, you should know that. 
I guess i could highlight the differences in an analysis that uses sonograms etc. But since i don't get paid for doing that i will pass on that one.

And btw. you really don't need _double_ blind tests for Pianoteq. It's really _very_ obvious...


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

Apparently it's not THAT obvious otherwise I wouldn't be asking more specifically what you mean. And I hope you're not passive-aggresively implying that I'm deaf, now.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

This is a worthwhile video for everyone to watch..its an hour, so make time for it, but I promise its worthwhile and might be applicable here:



If you don't have an hour, then please refer to this much shorter one:


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

That first video is golden, really. "JJ" is a legend.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 5, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> Apparently it's not THAT obvious otherwise I wouldn't be asking more specifically what you mean. And I hope you're not passive-aggresively implying that I'm deaf, now.



No, i'm not implying that you're deaf. 
For me and other ones the differences are obvious, while they are not obvious for you.
Such situations occur...


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

I guess it's called being biased  Since you know it's Pianoteq as soon as you see it producing the audio, you're always gonna dislike it, while for me it's the other way around.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 5, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> I guess it's called being biased  Since you know it's Pianoteq as soon as you see it producing the audio, you're always gonna dislike it, while for me it's the other way around.



Ok, you didn't read my statement above:
As i've written, there was a blind test at youtube that didn't tell you what is Pianoteq and what not.
Lots of different snippets. 
And i made that test. It was ridiculously easy for me to hear which was pianoteq and what not without knowing the solutions (that's why it's called a blind test)....
And when i looked at the solutions i saw that i had them all right.
Which was no surprise, of course.
Because it's really obvious.


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

If you made that test then you're automatically biased since you know (even if subconsciously) when which one plays - unless you used something like foobar's ABX plugin to create that test. EDIT: I suppose by "I made that test" you meant "I passed that test", so scratch the aforementioned.

It's not difficult for me to accept the fact that all of us hear the same things differently and focus on different aspects of it, and everything is heavily skewed with how lousy our auditory memory is and how fragile our expectation and cognitive biases are. That's what the first video dewdman linked to is all about.

Is it really so difficult for you to accept that what is "really obvious" to someone might not at all be obvious to somebody else, due to above mentioned ways our brains fuck with our cognition? Which is why I _specifically_ asked for more objective quantifiers other than "it doesn't sound like a piano".


If you're so good at hearing what's "wrong" with Pianoteq, you're like a perfect beta tester for it! Your presence there could likely bring it to a _whole new level then_. But of course, this is where you'd probably straight up decline to do that even if presented with possibility - right?


----------



## Living Fossil (May 5, 2019)

EvilDragon said:


> If you made that test then you're automatically biased since you know (even if subconsciously) when which one plays - unless you used something like foobar's ABX plugin to create that test.



No, i didn't created that test. I've listened to it on Youtube (as written). The guy who made the test switched between the different sources.


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 5, 2019)

do you have a pointer to this you tube blind test, I'd like to try it


----------



## EvilDragon (May 5, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> Probably i'd be in fact a good beta tester for them; despite your arrogant inflection.



I did not want that to sound arrogant, actually. It was just a very often played out situation for me. I talk to somebody about Pianoteq and the usual bout begins, "I can smell it from a mile away", then I propose well if you can hear what's wrong, why not help them out in improving it as a beta tester. And then I get something like "why should I bother when they'll never get it right"... THAT is the real arrogance, wouldn't you say?

If your stance is not like that at all and if you'd be willing to help them out, I can put you in touch with Modartt guys the next time they have something to beta test.



Living Fossil said:


> I guess it's extremely hard for you to accept the possiblity that somebody _might_ hear something that you don't.



No, not really. We all hear stuff differently, as I said above. But whenever I ask for something more quantifiable rather than subjective, nobody wants to provide that. As if I'm beyond salvation, or something.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 5, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> do you have a pointer to this you tube blind test, I'd like to try it



Sorry, no, i don't recall it, but a little Google search will probably do the trick.


----------



## Michael Antrum (May 5, 2019)

I'm afraid I'm another one in the 'don't like pianoteq' camp. It just sounds a little 'off' to me.

My favourite is the Ivory II American Concert D, on which I invariably turn off the built in reverb and push it through Spaces (and now Spaces 2). I have the whole Ivory II collection, and some of them I'm not particularly fond of either , but I just love the American Concert D. (The uprights are terrific too - particularly for barrelhouse, boogie boogie, and good old 50's Rock'n'Roll piano. A singular cure for relieving the stresses of modern living!)

To be fair, I think Pianoteq 6 is still a major step up from 5 which I really disliked, but 6 still doesn't float my boat. I will however, stick my hand in my pocket when v 7 is eventually released - it's still quite an achievement what they have done - even if it does not hit the spot for me as it is now.


----------



## lumcas (May 5, 2019)

Back on topic...



Aleela said:


> Which Steinway D do you think is the best? Ivory or Pianoteq?



VSL Synchron actually.


----------



## AllanH (May 5, 2019)

I very much enjoy Pianoteq but actually less so the German D they provide as part of purchase. I find it a bit "plasticy" in the middle register. However, many of the other models are fantastic. My favorite is the Bluetner. With a small amount of finagling, the Bluethner comes very close to an American D, at least far as my ears are concerned. Playability of PT is unrivaled, imo.


----------



## String-for-sale (May 5, 2019)

I have many pianos, including Pianoteq which I love, but my favorite of them all is Ivory II American Concert D.


----------



## Fleer (May 5, 2019)

AllanH said:


> I very much enjoy Pianoteq but actually less so the German D they provide as part of purchase. I find it a bit "plasticy" in the middle register. However, many of the other models are fantastic. My favorite is the Bluetner. With a small amount of finagling, the Bluethner comes very close to an American D, at least far as my ears are concerned. Playability of PT is unrivaled, imo.


Very true. And I love the Blüthner, Bechstein and Steingraeber most, in that order.


----------



## ramirogomez (Oct 2, 2019)

I recently made a Pianoteq 6 video review, it is in spanish, but you can check it out if you want 


Please let me know what you think!


----------



## decredis (Oct 5, 2019)

Thanks to this thread, I’ve been checking out the Pianoteq demo, and I’m impressed. I’ve played piano (non-professionally) for basically all the several decades of my life, and I can’t hear what’s unrealistic about this. I only have the various NI Komplete 12 sampled pianos to compare to, but the Pianoteq ones seem and feel a lot more alive, I guess the dynamic response is part of it. 

It’s a slightly obscure thing but the resonances of silently depressed keys to other keys being struck in Pianoteq sound spot-on to how a real piano responds: some of the NI pianos try to do this but do not succeed. (And actually, it’s not all that obscure: even when not deliberately performed as an effect, it contributes to the timbre whenever one note is played while another is held.)

Generally feel more inspired to play by the responsiveness and timbre of these than with the NI ones.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 5, 2019)

I know this thread is old, but Galaxy Vintage D is really worth consideration if you are looking for a Steinway D library.

As far as Pianoteq goes, I have got some mileage by changing the 'condition' slider - not making it full-on honky tonk, just adding about 10% to give some randomness / detuning. Also, check out the 'sympathetic resonance' sliders - those can also go a long way towards getting the right sound. 

Of course, if you don't like the sound, then you don't like the sound... for sure that's a subjective thing and I feel the same about some of the new modeled strings. But, damn... Pianoteq is really responsive and feels great under the fingers.

PS - Search the forum for some of re-peat's posts on Pianoteq. I seem to remember we had some good discussions about this a few years back.


----------



## DerGeist (Oct 5, 2019)

I'm in the pro Pianoteq camp. Its not my favorite piano plug but its up there. I also like to support modeling because I think that is really the future of sample libraries.

I do think Pianoteq benefits from a bit of tweaking (that you can even do, mostly, in the stage version). Turn down the quality of the piano a bit, a few notches down from mint and it makes a world of difference. I don't love the built in reverb so I use Spaces which makes a huge difference.

I also find that the keyboard configuration tool just makes this worse. Use your ears. A bit of EQ to remove the top end also helps.


----------



## Fleer (Oct 5, 2019)

If you don’t want to stroll down Pianoteq lane, be sure to check out the 1.1 version of Embertone’s Walker 1955 Concert. It’s the best sampled Steinway D in my opinion.


----------



## JamieLang (Oct 5, 2019)

Without reading 3 pages of discussion, as much as the geek in me loves te pIanoteq committement to modeling, it's just not even CLOSE.

My reference is the Ivory American D I play daily. But, if you want to talk less drive space the Galaxy VintageD comes really close. CERTIANLY in end result sound--the I need Ivory "under fingers" to ID it--it seems to play more seamlessly through it's 20 velocity layers than Galaxy by a SMIDGE....but, also--it's 45gb on disc vs like 5 or 6 (?)...rougly similar pricing...I'm just saying.

I also have a Kronos and really like the "German grand"--which is their Steinway disk streaming sample...they've made like 10 more pianos for it since realease and NONE of them "do it for me" like te German. Anyway--I bougt Ivory simply because it's so much "like" the Kronos "but better"--otherwise, any part I come up with in hardware, I can play in software and it's "like that but better". So I definitely have a type.

The deal is samples just keep getting more nad more fluid to play...and models don't get "less digital".

And I ran them at 96khz. Both--but I mean the model. In fact, Pianoteq was SO bad, I put it to 44.1 thinking maybe they never counted on te model being run in HD...I thought "certainly people can't think this is wat pianos sound like..."


----------



## TGV (Oct 5, 2019)

AllanH said:


> With a small amount of finagling


Is that a new plugin?


----------



## dzilizzi (Oct 5, 2019)

I bought Pianoteq for the free pianos. Not really fond of their Steinway D, but i love the Erard and Pleyel pianos. And the historical pianos are really cool sounding, especially if you make them worn. 

Really, though, what it comes down to is how you want to use it. Because a piano that sounds good in a mix may not sound as good as a solo or be as fun to play and vice versa. I'd probably second the Embertone if you want a real experience of a Steinway D with all the pedal action. But for a mix, I would use the Addictive Keys Studio Grand, which I believe is also Steinway D and cuts through a mix without being overpowering. 

Personally, I like the Ravenscroft or UVI's Fazioli's sound. My favorite Steinway is Imperfect Sample's Walnut. It is personal taste and I'm not overly good at the piano.


----------



## Fleer (Oct 5, 2019)

Forgot about VI Labs Ravenscroft and the Fazioli. Those are tasty indeed. And the Addictive Keys grand remains quite interesting given its rather small footprint.


----------



## tack (Oct 5, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> I'd probably second the Embertone if you want a real experience of a Steinway D with all the pedal action.


There is a pretty serious (IMO) pedaling behavior bug with 1.1 that existed since the initial release that prevents me from using it. Pianoteq may not compete on sound with the better sampled pianos but you just can't beat it on feel, and at least for me that's the most important quality to get the best performance.


----------



## dzilizzi (Oct 5, 2019)

tack said:


> There is a pretty serious (IMO) pedaling behavior bug with 1.1 that existed since the initial release that prevents me from using it. Pianoteq may not compete on sound with the better sampled pianos but you just can't beat it on feel, and at least for me that's the most important quality to get the best performance.


Did you get the recent update? I thought it was supposed to fix the pedal issues? I was hearing good things about it.


----------



## tack (Oct 5, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> Did you get the recent update? I thought it was supposed to fix the pedal issues? I was hearing good things about it.


Yep. I've reported the bug to Embertone and they're on the case. Unfortunately it's the same bug I noted from the initial release. I confess to being a bit confused as to why others haven't complained about this but I suppose continuous sustain pedals are just extremely rare.


----------



## dzilizzi (Oct 5, 2019)

tack said:


> Yep. I've reported the bug to Embertone and they're on the case. Unfortunately it's the same bug I noted from the initial release. I confess to being a bit confused as to why others haven't complained about this but I suppose continuous sustain pedals are just extremely rare.


That would make sense. From what it sounded like from the discussion, continuous sustain pedals are not normal, at east on less expensive units.


----------



## burp182 (Oct 5, 2019)

Something that pops up in this thread is the revelation that (whatever VI piano is under discussion) is nowhere near the satisfying experience that playing a physical piano produces. To which I can only respond, "Duh". At the very best, any VI can only provide the experience of listening to a mic-ed up piano. The process of passing through microphones and being reproduced through speakers will never be the same as playing a good piano in a nice room. I vividly recall a transcendent moment playing a big Steinway in a nice room at college at 1AM when everything was silent. I did that over and over just for that feeling. Another was playing a Grotrian at a NAMM show in the early 80's. Absolutely wonderful. Expecting a repeat of that feeling with a VI is setting yourself up for disappointment. But a better comparison would be micing the piano and recording it in a track and comparing that to the various VI instruments. I suspect you'd be surprised at your preference. 
I own an embarrassing number of the instruments and libraries mentioned in this long thread including Pianoteq (since V3). I agree that 6 is a quantum leap in quality and also that the condition slider is your friend. While the default Steinway isn't my favorite, some of the other pianos offered are kind of stunning. 
The point of my nearly endless screed is simply that most of us use these instruments as part of a track we're creating. Ultimately, the only measure of the pianos is how well it fits into the track, not whether it provides a perfect photographic reproduction. I don't know of any instrument (real or virtual) that fits every track I create. An endless search for "the best" will make you nuts. We're so fortunate that so many high quality instruments exist for us to choose from. 

As always, YMMV.


----------



## tack (Oct 6, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> From what it sounded like from the discussion, continuous sustain pedals are not normal, at east on less expensive units


Although one of the highlights of the new release was half pedaling, and you need a continuous pedal for that.


----------



## Fleer (Oct 6, 2019)

Same here. First time I read about a possible remaining issue. Nothing mentioned in the Pianoworld forum either.


----------



## Embertone (Oct 9, 2019)

tack said:


> Yep. I've reported the bug to Embertone and they're on the case. Unfortunately it's the same bug I noted from the initial release. I confess to being a bit confused as to why others haven't complained about this but I suppose continuous sustain pedals are just extremely rare.



We have our head programmer taking a look at it! Funny, this bug doesn't **ever** pop in my playing. But it surely is there in very specific cases.

-Alex


----------



## Fleer (Oct 9, 2019)

Love that dedication. Thanks, Embertone!


----------



## tack (Oct 9, 2019)

Embertone said:


> Funny, this bug doesn't **ever** pop in my playing. But it surely is there in very specific cases.


I am both skeptical and fascinated. Because I really don't think I'm doing anything weird, just striking a note in the midst of repedalling and then releasing the note when the pedal is down again. 

Isn't this how most players do it? That's where my fascination comes in: if that's not the case it would be an interesting discovery for me. 

Don't suppose you'd be willing to share some MIDI files of your performances? I bet there'd be something elucidating for me in there


----------



## JamieLang (Oct 10, 2019)

Or, as owner of a korg continuous damper on the Kronos, Id be glad to load up a NFS copy of any new Steinway piano library. I can break anything.  

Is it that the problem goes away when you use a binary damper?


----------



## JamieLang (Oct 10, 2019)

tack said:


> Although one of the highlights of the new release was half pedaling, and you need a continuous pedal for that.



Curiosity—what continuous pedal are you using?

I opened a midi monitor while using mine—never looked at it’s output....but its solidly 127 all the way down and 0 when i let off. In the middle, looks like id expect. Nothing terribly “jumpy”...


----------



## tack (Oct 10, 2019)

JamieLang said:


> Curiosity—what continuous pedal are you using?


Roland DP-10 with my Kontrol S88 and I also have a Kawai CA67 with a native continuous pedal. Both are 0 when up and 127 when down. The curves from both pedals look good to me.


----------



## Embertone (Oct 10, 2019)

tack said:


> Roland DP-10 with my Kontrol S88 and I also have a Kawai CA67 with a native continuous pedal. Both are 0 when up and 127 when down. The curves from both pedals look good to me.



I can say that it's NOT the hardware at fault though. Tack has proved that by sending MIDI my way that shows the problem on my machine as well.


----------



## JamieLang (Oct 11, 2019)

Embertone said:


> I can say that it's NOT the hardware at fault though. Tack has proved that by sending MIDI my way that shows the problem on my machine as well.



So that you get where i was coming from in asking and also in viewing the output or my own....your playing back the midi doesnt rule that out. Ultimately, that midi pedal is generating the stream thats throwing the instrument scripting for a loop. 

Now, i wouldn't suggest he change that “hardware”-its obviously exposed a flaw in the programatic logic...

I think what you mean by ruling out hardware is his computer hardware, becuase sure—the same midi file triggrs the problem on your computer hardware. That would absolutely be correct. But, youre still playing back the midi stream of his Roland pedal into S88 brain hardware generated. 

I appreciate that this comes up, becuase I hadnt even considered that as potential issue with pianos, but as long as makers script against the sustain, even if theyre looking for binary (maybe MORE likely if they expect binary) and my Kronos spits 65-80-50-70 within a fraction of a millisecond, that might cause a kind of spew of damper samples/effects triggered....may in fact need an extra logic loop in there to transform in real time to 0-10=off....10-127=on....ten built in to handle a slightly skewed continuous pedal.


----------



## Andrew Souter (Oct 12, 2019)

Ivory II American D is where it is at IMHO. Disable the verb and add B2 or Breeze and some very minor eq and compression and it’s perfect for “contemporary classical” piano material. Here is a full album example of my own work with this combo :


----------



## Michael Antrum (Oct 12, 2019)

I use Spaces II with the American D, or if I'm feeling a bit adventurous, Seventh Heaven, though I have to stop myself getting carried away with it.

I've tried loads of other pianos, and every time I think I've found something better, I go back to it and find is isn't so.

Some lovely piano music there Andrew.


----------

