# Real Vs Sampled Piano, is the difference worth the effort?



## Fab (May 7, 2021)

Hi there,

As the title says, I'm curious to hear your experiences of this.

Thanks,

Fab


----------



## doctoremmet (May 7, 2021)

Hi Fab. I feel your question may be too broad, as the answer will likely depend on the type of recording / arrangement we’re talking about here.


----------



## doctoremmet (May 7, 2021)

For exposed solo piano recordings samples have come a long way, but I still like my real Yamaha upright better. Not only the sound, but of course also the way it makes me feel when I play. I can feel the strings resonating. It just “is” my piano, and I do not have any worries nor annoyances about that one note where I could clearly hear a bumpy velocity layer transition.

However... my upright does not sound like Piano In Blue. It can’t do the staccatissimo as well as my 8Dio 1985 Passionate Piano can. It doesn’t have fantastic textural layers like Westwood ALT Piano does. When I want a felt sound, I don’t have to fool around with actual.... felt... when I use Spitfire’s sampled one. Wait, I don’t even HAVE felt nor would I know what to do with it haha. And in order to record my Yammie I need to fiddle about with microphones, which is a lot of hassle. And no MIDI editing :-(

So yeah... sampled pianos are awesome. They have given me choice. And are a source of inspiration in and of themselves.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 7, 2021)

In my experience: Depends by the context.
Full on arrangement in some genres can get away with a good sampled piano and be happy.
A good sampled piano can perfectly do most jobs and give lots of satisfaction.

Having said that, when there is a real piano involved, especially for more intimate and sparse arrangement or in an emotional song...well my ears smile a lot more.

Solo classical piano and Jazz only a real piano can do the job properly IMHO. All the dynamics, all the emotion, the sweat, the tuning, the air moving in the room, the mic bleed. No other way for me.

I prefer recording my modest small upright Schimmel then using samples of the best Steinway recorded in the best studios in the world.

My issue is when I'm the one having to play... Well I'm a guitar person so my MIDI performances are more edit-able....


----------



## doctoremmet (May 7, 2021)

A good illustration of this is the recent “ragtime piano” thread, where valued forum member Piet @re-peat put in a lot of effort to demonstrate the specific ragtime capabilities (and the lack thereof) of a number of well known and loved sampled piano instruments. Most of them failed.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 7, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> A good illustration of this is the recent “ragtime piano” thread, where valued forum member Piet @re-peat put in a lot of effort to demonstrate the specific ragtime capabilities (and the lack thereof) of a number of well known and loved sampled piano instruments. Most of them failed.


Will check that one out, I missed it...


----------



## doctoremmet (May 7, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> Will check that one out, I missed it...


Oh absolutely check it. Craig @CGR chimed in as well, so it was one of those “this is why I love VI-C content” golden threads.


----------



## doctoremmet (May 7, 2021)

Speaking of maestro Craig... the fact that there is a demand for his excellent services speaks volumes of course:






Piano producer | THE PIANOS







www.pianoproducer.com


----------



## Danilebob (May 7, 2021)

So I guess if you're writing ragtime, don't go for a virtual piano. I haven't heard any ragtime releases lately, but that's just me.
I like the virtual pianos, but the experience is not relatable to playing a real piano in any fashion. I've grabbed a bunch of pianos from pianobook and the orchestral grand from Spitfire hoping it would give a semblance of playing in an empty hall by myself...... it does not. It sounds great in context, don't get me wrong, but there's nothing quite like banging on a real piano by yourself in a room all alone.
So, I vote for real piano for doodling, enjoying, and whimsical musing about the universe
and virtual pianos for scoring, practicality, and general DAW use.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 8, 2021)

My 2 cents: on a technical level, the number of velocity layers of the virtual piano should tell you how well it can represent real a piano. For example, the 8dio 1969 Steinway for all the bells and whistles (mic positions, convolution presets) apparently only has few velocity layers that it can't even manage a proper crescendo! That said, their newer offerings with advertised 20 velocity layers should fare better.

On a personal level, I read somewhere that Steinway pianos have reached such a high esteem that people think all pianos sound like that, whereas actually other pianos like Bechstein, Bösendorfer, Fazioli do have unique sounds of their own, and some people do prefer them to Steinway.


----------



## Fab (May 10, 2021)

Sorry, I was being vague! Although, I might not have heard some of the replies (which have been very useful to know) so I guess it worked out.

I am really keen to record my pianist friend playing their (beautiful) upright for some TV music. So far though it's proven a bit of a nightmare between tuning, microphone placement, buying/renting correct gear @wst3 (thanks!) etc.

I had a look at some of the suggestions in the replies and it's been helpful. 

To me the main difference is that I have a very bad MIDI controller keyboard so it doesn't really matter how good the samples are! That is the main complaint I have been hearing anyway. I also don't really want to buy an expensive master MIDI keyboard because I barely use the one I have.


----------



## PhilipJohnston (May 10, 2021)

Fab, If you're thinking of recording piano even semi-regularly, it's much cheaper—and you'll get a much better outcome—if you get a good 88 note controller and a top tier piano sample library than mucking about with microphones/piano tuners etc. 

Some years ago I sold two perfectly good acoustic grand pianos, replaced them with an all-digital setup. Absolutely no regrets.

Instead of my never-quite-perfectly-in-tune pianos, inexpertly recorded with my OK-but-not-great-microphones, I get the microphones, placement, sound engineers, instruments, expertise and ambience of somewhere like Synchron Stage (VSL) or Abbey Road Studios (Garritan CFX), all recorded on a $250,000 instrument. And then—particularly with Synchron—I then also get a wealth of microphone options for sculpting the sound. 

Recent example using Yamaha CFX VSL is below, also plenty of Garritan examples at my YouTube Channel. No acoustic pianos used in any of the videos.


----------



## Toecutter (May 10, 2021)

PhilipJohnston said:


> Fab, If you're thinking of recording piano even semi-regularly, it's much cheaper—and you'll get a much better outcome—if you get a good 88 note controller and a top tier piano sample library than mucking about with microphones/piano tuners etc.
> 
> Some years ago I sold two perfectly good acoustic grand pianos, replaced them with an all-digital setup. Absolutely no regrets.
> 
> ...



I agree, to achieve this level of quality with an acoustic instrument would require a high investment: impeccable room, instrument, microphones, engineer, musician. It's much easier and fail-proof to get a good controller and a virtual instrument like the D-274.

Great playing Philip and wonderful pieces, was just check your channel! The version on your channel was recorded in 2014? The audio was from the piano itself or another library? Does that piano have MIDI too or you had to painstakingly recreate the performance for VSL?


----------



## PhilipJohnston (May 10, 2021)

Toecutter said:


> I agree, to achieve this level of quality with an acoustic instrument would require a high investment: impeccable room, instrument, microphones, engineer, musician. It's much easier and fail-proof to get a good controller and a virtual instrument like the D-274.
> 
> Great playing Philip and wonderful pieces, was just check your channel! The version on your channel was recorded in 2014? The audio was from the piano itself or another library? Does that piano have MIDI too or you had to painstakingly recreate the performance for VSL?


The 2014 version was also using a sample library, and was one of the first tracks I recorded with the digital setup. Sample library there is Garritan, Piano is a Yamaha Avant Grand, so it's entirely digital, but with the onboard sound disabled (the samples on the Yamaha are not great). Out of shot is my iMac, running Logic.

So to make the corresponding 2020 VSL video, I reused the MIDI file, swapped out the Garritan for the VSL CFX in Logic, and replaced the resultant audio on the original video. The two videos with the same performance are a good way of comparing the two VSTs.

To complete the comparison, there's the original Warner recording of the whole piece - that's an acoustic Steinway D, in a recording studio, with sound engineers to hand, tuner on standby etc. In short, I could never afford to record like that if I had to foot the bill, hence sample libraries


----------



## cygnusdei (May 10, 2021)

PhilipJohnston said:


> The 2014 version was also using a sample library, and was one of the first tracks I recorded with the digital setup. Sample library there is Garritan, Piano is a Yamaha Avant Grand, so it's entirely digital, but with the onboard sound disabled (the samples on the Yamaha are not great). Out of shot is my iMac, running Logic.
> 
> So to make the corresponding 2020 VSL video, I reused the MIDI file, swapped out the Garritan for the VSL CFX in Logic, and replaced the resultant audio on the original video. The two videos with the same performance are a good way of comparing the two VSTs.
> 
> To complete the comparison, there's the original Warner recording of the whole piece - that's an acoustic Steinway D, in a recording studio, with sound engineers to hand, tuner on standby etc. In short, I could never afford to record like that if I had to foot the bill, hence sample libraries


That's interesting. Is latency perceptible at all?


----------



## PhilipJohnston (May 10, 2021)

Not at all. I put headphones on, find the right reverb, enable the tactile vibrations on the Yamaha, and I very quickly forget that I'm not at a real piano. And that's after a lifetime of acoustic Yamaha, Steinway, Bosendorfer....I'm not easy to fool.


----------



## Toecutter (May 10, 2021)

PhilipJohnston said:


> The 2014 version was also using a sample library, and was one of the first tracks I recorded with the digital setup. Sample library there is Garritan, Piano is a Yamaha Avant Grand, so it's entirely digital, but with the onboard sound disabled (the samples on the Yamaha are not great). Out of shot is my iMac, running Logic.
> 
> So to make the corresponding 2020 VSL video, I reused the MIDI file, swapped out the Garritan for the VSL CFX in Logic, and replaced the resultant audio on the original video. The two videos with the same performance are a good way of comparing the two VSTs.
> 
> To complete the comparison, there's the original Warner recording of the whole piece - that's an acoustic Steinway D, in a recording studio, with sound engineers to hand, tuner on standby etc. In short, I could never afford to record like that if I had to foot the bill, hence sample libraries


That's just a huge testament to how far digital recording has come. I'm having a hard time picking a favorite, not that I need to, the three versions are equally enjoyable and have their different small flavors. And thanks for linking to the original, I was going to ask where I could listen to the complete recording... I feel a bit silly talking about virtual instruments now, who even cares when the music is this good? XD You got a new fan!


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 10, 2021)

To reiterate what Philip said, could I (or anyone highly proficient at the instrument) do _better_ if we had access to a $15k+ recording session on a $200k+ instrument? Sure, maybe? At a high level of play, the differences are extremely difficult to distinguish.


----------



## Buz (May 10, 2021)

It depends which way you come at it. It's very easy to find a particular classical recording that samples have no hope of replicating. On the other hand a good sample recording (like Philip) communicates wonderfully and there's no sense of anything being missing. So aside from the cost argument, it should also be asked, what exactly is the goal.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 10, 2021)

Buz said:


> It's very easy to find a particular classical recording that samples have no hope of replicating.


Where? 🤔

There's not a piece of classical music (not using extended techniques) that can't be done well on one of the Synchron pianos.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 10, 2021)

As far as mechanics are concerned I assume for all-purpose live play the patch loads an attack sample upon key press and then a release sample upon key release. But there is a special set of staccato samples for realistic rapid attack-release action. But these can't work in live play (how is it supposed to know you're going to play staccato next?). So these will only work in the context of a MIDI program. That's my assumption anyway.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 10, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Where? 🤔
> 
> There's not a piece of classical music (not using extended techniques) that can't be done will on one of the Synchron pianos.



The biggest shortcomings of sampled pianos are mostly an issue by music that relies on a buildup of the string resonances (lots of pedal usage). Also passages, where fast repetitions result in interesting colourations of the respective note, where interesting things happen to phase of the notes.
Music that comes to my mind would be e.g. lots of Liszt's music, some of Debussy and many more.

Besides that, i agree that very often sampled pianos are a better option for studio work, i'd even say in most of the cases.

Some years ago i wrote a score that relied quite a bit on the sound of my upright that i had prepared.
It was absolutely worth the extra-mile. And as mentioned, the things that happen inside of the body of the instrument – that living cosmos of resonances – was the best part.

(And of course, real instruments have a huge advantage in terms of inspirations. Those small detunings that occur give interesting colourations to chords and therefore can give a fresh perspective on the "used" material. And this can be a source of inspiration which lots of [famous] composers used)


----------



## brandowalk (May 10, 2021)

Sampled pianos can sound amazing, provide lots of sonic options, and are great for quick inspiration for writing and recording. It is much faster to dial-up a VI vs getting the mics out and finding optimal placement, etc. and hitting record. That said, I don't find sampled pianos as enjoyable as actually playing the real deal. So which is best? Whatever options works best for the task. For me, it likely depends on my creative mind frame as well as how much time I have on hand for the track.

I don't have a real hammond b3, but I would guess it would be the same thing for that instrument as well for real vs VI.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 10, 2021)

Hmmm. Fossil do you play much Liszt and Debussy?


----------



## JohnG (May 10, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> The biggest shortcomings of sampled pianos are mostly an issue by music that relies on a buildup of the string resonances (lots of pedal usage). Also passages, where fast repetitions result in interesting colourations of the respective note, where interesting things happen to phase of the notes.
> Music that comes to my mind would be e.g. lots of Liszt's music, some of Debussy and many more.


This is spot on. If you're writing something where the music gets the piano rip-roaring, with its tremendous capacity for resonance of the entire instrument, you just don't get that with samples.

So if you have passages that are full of big crescendos and scales and "attacking the instrument," live is the way to go.

However, to answer the OP, I agree that much of the time it's surprisingly a bit of a let-down replacing sampled with live piano. If it's just "part of the sound," it's normally not worth it.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 10, 2021)

...guys lol. 😂 You checked the comparison Philip posted right? There's no difference in "resonance" or repeated note "color" any of that... 

...and in fact, the VSL recording _definitely_ sounds less muddy.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 10, 2021)

I think the VI does simulate sustain and sympathetic resonance by DSP algorithm (at least Garritan does), but the question is how realistic. FWIW a piece like Debussy Reflets dans l'eau that has the entire soundboard resonating throughout the whole keyboard range would be a good benchmark.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Hmmm. Fossil do you play much Liszt and Debussy?


Nowadays much less than some years ago. Liszt's sonata (h-moll) was the hardest piece of literature i've played. Had to practise really long for it. That's why i know it inside out. And that's also a reason why i know how huge the difference is when you play it on a real Steinway....


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> There's no difference in "resonance" or repeated note "color" any of that...


I was referring to literature that relies on these attributes.

BTW, i totally get your euphoria about Synchron. I'll never forget my amazement when i first heard strings on a Roland sampler.
Give yourself some time. Listen again to these sampled pianos vs. real ones in some years.
The ear needs some time to hear some details.
Being a pianist yourself, you can check the repeated notes in a piece like e.g. La campanella.
The differences might be subtle for an untrained ear, but they are there. It's about the acoustic behaviour of a resonating string being repeatedly hit by a hammer.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 11, 2021)

Also like someone mentioned already, when it comes to how enjoyable it is to stand in front of a real piano and play it vs standing in front of a MIDI keyboard and a video monitors and speakers, there is no doubt in my mind what I crave more. The sound coming from the real deal is "around" you and "touches" you.
Final recorded results apart (which can be amazing!), it is just a different experience, much more inspiring to write to.

Obviously this whole debate would be applicable to any instrument/ensemble. 
Even being on VI-control, unfortunately, we can all admit, 100% the real deal always always wins. :-(
But with other instruments, especially orchestral, these lucky days we tend to not even question the matter as the difference would be in the 1000s of $ per NOTE, and just be happy about what could be obtained.

With pianos it's much more simple and, when possible, like i already stated, I prefer my very modest real piano to a sampled Steinway recorded in a concert hall.
(I do work from a studio with very nice mics and a nice sounding room, but I would still prefer it even with a more minimal setup)


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2021)

I love the sound of a real piano but logistically speaking, I prefer software more. A recent case was a recording I did in studio. I decided to record the audio and midi output from a Yamaha motif. The Yamaha’s pianos are fine. With each track we took though, I had to make sure we had something close enough to the intended end result to make sure the player was feeling the essence of the instrument and playing to its strengths.

Im very glad I did it this way. In the end, we took multiple takes of the song, and each one got better and better. The audio we took was great, but some of the takes the player made were so filled with passion that a few off notes snuck in. They were such emotional fantastic takes. Instead of having to ask the player to redo it, I decided I would just edit the midi to remove the off notes and do fine tuning of the piano sounds later.

after the recording was done, I used some of the UVI pianos and found that some songs that I thought would be better on grand piano we’re actually way better on upright. That level of flexibility is everything for me. What I find works best though, is to have a broad collection of piano vsts. If you limit yourself to one set for all uses, you lose that chance for inspiration and discovery. Each vst is different and can really change the vibe of a good performance. Also get something like spaces or altiverb.

So yeah, VSTs all the way for me (other than in live application)


----------



## cygnusdei (May 11, 2021)

chocobitz825 said:


> I love the sound of a real piano but logistically speaking, I prefer software more. A recent case was a recording I did in studio. I decided to record the audio and midi output from a Yamaha motif. The Yamaha’s pianos are fine. With each track we took though, I had to make sure we had something close enough to the intended end result to make sure the player was feeling the essence of the instrument and playing to its strengths.
> 
> Im very glad I did it this way. In the end, we took multiple takes of the song, and each one got better and better. The audio we took was great, but some of the takes the player made were so filled with passion that a few off notes snuck in. They were such emotional fantastic takes. Instead of having to ask the player to redo it, I decided I would just edit the midi to remove the off notes and do fine tuning of the piano sounds later.
> 
> ...


The thing about the edits is interesting. FWIW Glenn Gould, legendary Canadian pianist was known to edit his own recordings likewise (of course this was before VST, all done with real piano). But the thing about swapping one piano VI with another, I'd guess that unless the music is particularly amenable and/or the pianos are similarly sampled by the same people, they would have different velocity curves that the result would be a different performance altogether, not a simple swap job.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 11, 2021)

cygnusdei said:


> The thing about the edits is interesting. FWIW Glenn Gould, legendary Canadian pianist was known to edit his own recordings likewise (off course this was before VST, all done with real piano). But the thing about swapping one piano VI with another, I'd guess that unless the music is particularly amenable and/or the pianos are similarly sampled by the same people, they would have different velocity curves that the result would be a different performance altogether, not a simple swap job.


I think in any major recording situation these days, editing is a factor but made far more difficult after the fact when dealing with audio. I could have easily just asked the player to punch in a new take but damn for this one little off note, the passion of that take was magic. MIDI gave me flexibility. I agree that swapping VI's can create all kinds of variables for better or worse. that's where happy discoveries can happen. By at least trying to keep a general idea of the intended sound before recording, the playstyle is solid. Swapping out VI's after is really just a creative choice. Some fit naturally, others require some tweaking, but in the end, it's better than the hassle of recording multiple live pianos. No doubt some magic happens live that can't be reproduced digitally, but in those cases, I feel recording live means you're in a mindset set to execute a precise plan, rather than encouraging yourself to experiment and find something new.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 11, 2021)

Well, when listening to a recording, nobody is standing in front of a real piano with a live player hearing what is coming off the instrument.

Consider what happens to a drum kit in the process of making commercial, high quality recording: drums do not sound remotely like that in person. Yet, except for some dudes in bands, society's perception of drums, having primarily consumed their sound through recordings, is that they are heavily processed. Standing in a front of a live drum kit, the sound is washy and shitty, with very little "punch" to it, and always way too loud.

That is why now all commercial pop/rock/urban recordings, even if the engineer/producer/artist wants to "do it right" with a live player, a plurality of the drum sound gets replaced with *samples*. Maybe some Boomers out there trying to recreate the glory days say it doesn't sound better, but history, and its concomitant effect on societal _taste_, is written by the winners.

Of course, "drums" are barely an instrument anyway. 😜 Yet, the principles above apply to other instruments, the piano being easier on the difficulty-to-sample spectrum given the nature of the instrument.

To the guy who says he plays (played?) the Liszt Bminor Sonata (🤔), there was a sampled piano out there when I was young called Ivory II. It sounded pretty good, but was a bit of a hassle to make it sound "real." Ivory II still sounds pretty good, and it is still a hassle to make it sound real. That isn't remotely the same universe of difference between that synth thing you were speaking of and string samples today. But it what you said is confusing, you have played the Liszt B Minor on the VSL 280VC or you "just know" that it won't sound as good?


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

Limbaugh, as i wrote you in a pm, it would be nicer to have a decent conversation without that condescending tone. There is no need for it.
Grown up people can have different opinions without getting insulting.
And seriously, i don't get it why it irritates you that much that i played Liszt's sonata.

You shouldn't prejudge people based on bare assumptions, that's just stupid.

And btw. i agree that the Synchron pianos are much better than Ivory II.
When i was young (to paraphrase you) there were ads with famous pianists you told that they can't here a difference between a Kurzweil and the real thing.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 11, 2021)

Yeah yeah… But have you played the B Minor Liszt sonata on the VSL 280VC yet?


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

No, not yet. Will report back when i have. And if i change my mind, i'll let you know.

Have you tried the fast repetitions on a real piano yet vs. samples?


----------



## AudioLoco (May 11, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Well, when listening to a recording, nobody is standing in front of a real piano with a live player heading what is coming off the instrument.
> 
> Consider what happens to a drum kit in the process of making commercial, high quality recording: drums do not sound remotely like that in person. Yet, except for some dudes in bands, society's perception of drums, having primarily consumed their sound through recordings, is that they are heavily processed. Standing in a front of a live drum kit, the sound is washy and shitty, with very little "punch" to it, and always way too loud.
> 
> ...


So according to the same logic:

Only extremely auto-tuned and super processed vocals are "winners" and all the rest is for boomers.

oh man....

Commercial pop/urban is not in any way a representation of real music played in a space by actual people, and doesn't need to.

Modern "Rock" people got used to neither. It has every bloody drum hit quantized and vocals that sound like dying robots.

While any type of recording is just a representation, an idea of what is really being heard from an actual person in a room (mics are not the same as ears, electronics, digitization and lots of processes in the middle affect the original "pure" sound), in "cinematic" music, made with mostly classical instruments, it is kind of nice to keep some kind of correlation with reality (unless it's trailer music).

Also it's not only about final recorded results, if you compose, it's also about playing the instrument and feeding inspiration from it.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> Also it's not only about final recorded results, if you compose, it's also about playing the instrument and feeding inspiration from it.



That's one thing for sure.

The other is – i've just took the time and listened again to the demos of the VSL 280VC – that there is still a *huge* difference in those aspects of the sound i've described earlier.
So, addressed to Limbaugh, i guess i'll pass on demoing it for now. 
I guess to get really more convincing emulations of the resonances and also the spectral behaviour of fast repeated notes there is much more physical modelling necessary than it's actually possible.
The differences are not even subtle. They are super-obvious.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 11, 2021)

Instead of sampled, look into modeled piano plugins


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

Ivan M. said:


> Instead of sampled, look into modeled piano plugins


They are even much less convincing to my ears, unfortunately. 
(there were some discussions here, and i don't feel the urge to refresh them...)
The physics behind some things is much more complex than one might think.

Resonance buildups in a piano can have a very interesting (almost chaotic) behaviour.
That's one reason why it's extremely difficult to cut different takes of a piano recording:
You might play the phrase almost exactly in the same way, with the same pedalling, yet you have completely different overtone amplifications. The funny thing is, sometimes a cut might seem perfect but then you suddenly hear where the overtone content "jumps".


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 11, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> Only extremely auto-tuned and super processed vocals are "winners" and all the rest is for boomers.


Not at all. Vocals of course sit on a side of the aforementioned spectrum furtherest from drums or pianos. You could have extrapolated that from the previous post. 😉


----------



## cygnusdei (May 11, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> They are even much less convincing to my ears, unfortunately.
> (there were some discussions here, and i don't feel the urge to refresh them...)
> The physics behind some things is much more complex than one might think.
> 
> ...


To be fair, I think resonance effects depend on piano lid position (open, quarter open, closed, completely closed) and mic position as well. There are recordings with inside piano perspective (really wet) and there are those with tiny studio ambience (really dry). And piano not in solo context changes the game altogether.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

cygnusdei said:


> To be fair, I think resonance effects depends on piano lid position (open, quarter open, closed, completely closed) and mic position as well. There are recordings with inside piano perspective (really wet) and there are those with tiny studio ambience (really dry). And piano not in solo context changes the game altogether.



Yes i know, however i was referring to situations where the same positions of the pedal are reproduced...
As said, these things are complex...


----------



## CGR (May 11, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> . . .
> I guess to get really more convincing emulations of the resonances and also the spectral behaviour of fast repeated notes there is much more physical modelling necessary than it's actually possible.
> The differences are not even subtle. They are super-obvious.


Recreating the aural phenomenon of a hammer/s repeatedly hitting already moving strings is a tough one for sampled pianos. Undoubtedly it's not the same as triggering samples which were captured with the hammer hitting the strings in a resting state, regardless of how many velocity layers, round robins or sympathetic sample overlays there are.

The old East West Quantum Leap pianos were sampled pedal up, pedal down *and* with multiple repetition samples in an attempt to capture this sound. It works to some degree, but there are issues & problems with these sampled pianos which have been talked about previously. Still, kudos to East West for addressing this aspect of piano performance.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 11, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> Have you tried the fast repetitions on a real piano yet vs. samples?


...probably a million notes worth at this point. I'll excerpt the La Campanella... standby.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 11, 2021)

View attachment la campanella excerpt.mp3


There's little to complain about on the VSL 280VC responding to these repeated notes.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 11, 2021)

as previously written: work on your hearing. (amongst other things)


----------



## JohnG (May 11, 2021)

Well, I have to agree with @Living Fossil 

The audio example is pretty good, considering, but totally sterile compared with a real piano.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 11, 2021)

😂😂 this fuckin' place... lol. Dude starts barking around about repeated notes, resonances, and playing Liszt's B minor sonata... in response an excerpt from freakin' _La Campanella_ is _*learned*_* and *_*recorded*_ in half an hour and it's seen as sterile with a need for a more discerning ear.

That's peak VI-C. Nice work! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Maybe if I used more pedal next time!


----------



## Arbee (May 11, 2021)

I'm less concerned with the "difference" and more with "fit for purpose". For inspiration and encouraging a minimalist approach, the nuances of some sampled pianos are priceless (and I do find the use of the sustain pedal gets intense focus). Just as much as a real full concert Steinway gives you goosebumps pounding out some of the classics in a way that no other alternative can. Unfortunatelty modelled pianos do neither for me as yet.


----------



## re-peat (May 12, 2021)

To me, rapidly repeated notes, and the resulting amplification of certain resonances, aren’t even anywhere near the biggest obstacle standing in the way of a sampled instrument attempting to pose as a real one. That’s more of a “Ah, yes, that too, of course” sort of problem, I find.

It’s the near-complete absence of living colour, living timbral detail, delicacy, dynamic sculpability and overal dimensionality of the sound that bothers me most. All of this in immense contradistinction with a real piano and the way it deals with the chaotic energy that enters its complex being via the hands of the player, and then responds accordingly. That, and the way a real instrument’s sound takes to, and claims the room. Quite simply: unsampleable.

That absence of chaos and complexity (and these two being replaced with the tedious poverty and predictability of dead sound) are, I feel, the main reasons why virtual pianos — all of them — are but superficial, flat and extremely tiresome substitutes for the real thing.

I can’t stand 5 minutes listening to, let alone playing, a Synchron piano (or any other virtual piano for that matter). It bores me immensely. Playing a virtual instrument, you’ve explored its territory completely within half an hour, you know its idiosyncracies, limitations and its strengths (if there are any) down to the tiniest details, and once all that is established — like I said, usually within half an hour, often much sooner — the instrument will never surprise you again. It can’t, as it’s dead.

A few posts ago it was suggested that the Synchrons are ready to tackle the entire classical repertoire with totally convincing results. How anyone, let alone an accomplished player, can say such a thing is more than I can understand, but I guess we all listen very differently to music, to the way it is performed and to the sounds that carry it into our brains. (And that bizarre, almost religious fanaticism of VSL adepts, the way they are convinced of the infallibility of just about anything that VSL releases, and turn a deaf and acrimonious ear to everything that contradicts it, plays its part in this matter as well, I have a feeling.)

Anyway, below are 10 examples of real piano recordings — and I could easily post days of non-stop music like this — which, in my opinion, no virtual instrument is entirely ready for. I focused with these examples more on the delicate side of the piano, to my ears the side that will instantly reveal how inept virtual instruments still are.
(Synchron pianos, at least the two I own, can be quite satisfactory when rendering the big, bravoura side of a piano. My Roland V-Piano also sounded best everytime I got “medieval on its ass”. A piece like, say, the “Russian Dance” from “Petrushka” is something I imagine a Synchron piano could do quite well.)

A virtual instrument compares to a real one the way I, as a piano player, compare to Martha Argerich. I can play a scale as well as she can. But that's no proof that I’m in Argerich’s league, is it? And it’s the same thing with virtual instruments: a good sampled piano is capable of suggesting a tiny portion of _all that a real instrument can be_, and do so quite convincingly, sure, but that’s where it ends. Beyond that ‘tiny portion’, there is still an infinite vista of musical life, timbral expression and ultra-precise, context-aware definition and articulation, all of which is the exclusive province of a real instrument and thus totally inaccessible to a virtual instrument.

*Ravel: Prélude* (Georges Pludermacher)
*Stravinsky: L'Histoire du Soldat* (fragment) (Christopher O'Riley)
*R. Nathaniel Dett: Song* (Clipper Erickson)
*Prokofiev/Pletnev: Cinderella* (Martha Argerich & Mikhail Pletnev)
*Debussy: La Danse de Puck* (Jean-Efflam Bavouzet)
*Mendelssohn: Lieder Ohne Worte, Andante Un Poco Agitato* (Javier Perianes)
*Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 27 nr. 4, Allegretto* (Maria Kodama)
*Liszt : Grandes Etudes de Paganini Nr.4 in E major* (Daniil Trifonov)
*J.S. Bach: Capriccio BWV992, Andante* (Claire-Marie Le Guay)
*J. Haydn: Piano Sonata in E-flat major Hob. XVI:52, Adagio* (Rafaël Blechacz)

And then we haven't even discussed jazz piano yet, a field where virtual pianos sound at least as embarrassingly flawed as they do in most classical music.

_


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 12, 2021)

Peat, do you remember this exchange?

https://vi-control.net/community/th...is-your-favourite-and-why.105578/post-4761887

My suggestion would be to practice more with your Synchron pianos… and not just for the feel of the instrument, but practice sculpting the sound and with the various key-by-key parameters and of course, mic positions. 

Sampled pianos require different adaptations for each specific individual instrument, even if made by the same developer. Spending more than 30mins before dropping them into a template is advisable!

I have done this with the VSL Steinway, but not the 280VC yet. Going key by key and utilizing the per-key EQ and volume, plus automating the room mics, body, key noise, pedal noise, or sympathetic resonance, then in the mixing phase upping the polyphony to 1,024 notes will give you want you want.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 12, 2021)

I was going to bring up Mozart/Beethoven and the fortepiano, but I'm glad someone mentioned Bach! At the risk of venturing into the philosophical, perhaps it's worth exploring the nature of music: to me, music seems to have dual nature, music = design, but music = sound as well. The discussion hitherto focuses on the sound nature of music, but in the context of classical music such matter is beyond the scope of the design. In other words, the instrument for which the composer wrote was vastly different from today's concert grand that all this discussion about timbre, resonance, dimension, nuances etc. is a reflection of _your_ personal preference and not necessarily the composer's intention. I feel it's important to make this distinction.

Another way to look at it: there is a school of thought that 'authentic' music should be played on instruments contemporary to that period, e.g. Bach on the harpsichord, Mozart/Beethoven on the pianoforte, Chopin on Erard piano. So if you play Bach on a Steinway it would be disqualifying anyway, making any discussion about VI moot.


----------



## TomislavEP (May 12, 2021)

I'm a multi-instrumentalist (primarily a pianist). While I often think of all these virtual instruments and libraries as a "necessary evil" and more convenient and affordable alternatives to a real thing, the practical benefit of working with these is evident, despite all the shortcomings.

From my experience, when dealing with any kind of acoustic instrument, particularly in your own environment, something is always lacking. While you can buy audio interfaces and microphones that can give you "professional quality" even in the budget range (at least, in theory), only a few of us are fortunate enough to also have a perfectly balanced recording space and conditions, or a meticulously maintained piano. Of course, capturing all the imperfections of a certain instrument might just be what you're after.

Speaking of character, thanks to the vast library of virtual pianos out there, you can more easily find the one that best fits your particular needs, as each brand, type, age, etc is different. Sometimes you don't even need a library that is "technically perfect". Numerous examples at Pianobook are living proof that you can capture the sonic essence of a particular piano with less than stellar conditions and equipment.


----------



## Buz (May 12, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Peat, do you remember this exchange?
> 
> https://vi-control.net/community/th...is-your-favourite-and-why.105578/post-4761887


Look, I'm a massive Synchron fanboy and wouldn't even be here if I didn't love them as they are. But it's good to be realistic about what _may_ be possible and what has been shown to be possible. It _may _be that experienced engineering talent could find the glow and resonance of that Olafsson within a Synchron piano. But until someone demonstrates this it doesn't make sense to assume it's possible. Upping the complexity of modelling (with Synchron) seems a more likely pathway towards that particular place.

Absolutely nothing but respect for your 2 minute mock-up. At the same time if anyone finds that to be in the same aural universe that's a testament to what re-peat suggested about how we all listen in our own individual way.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 12, 2021)

these arguments about sonic purity are so boring because they're just philosophical masturbation about nothing important. Everyone knows a VI is not a real instrument equivalent. We all understand there are limitations and trade-offs. These arguments always end up at the same conclusion. most people who listen, don't know the difference and don't care....and the very hypocritical argument for this VI-focused group persists. VI's are nothing like the real thing....but most of us use VI's for our work and still create emotionally moving pieces of work despite the limitations of the technology. So it "feels" different, who cares? There are plenty of ways to adjust VI's to draw more out of them, but if we're talking about accessibility, and practicality in today's markets, VI's are a good thing. 

Hell, I could have recorded with a real piano for my music. I had the budget for it, but I wanted flexibility. If I was to do a piano solo, I would likely not use VI's because, yeah, a piano feels different when it's by itself, exposed. Still, that entirely depends on the music, and its needs. Not everything needs to be such a pompous exercise in snobbish musical standards. If your argument to others is "get your ears checked! it feels sterile", the only relevant rebuttal is, most people don't give two shits about how good you think your ears are. They like what they like, and a VI is a suitable substitute for most people.


----------



## SupremeFist (May 12, 2021)

I think we can all agree on two complementary propositions:

1 Sampled pianos do not sound _exactly_ like very well-recorded expensive pianos: the difference can be more or less obvious to us depending on repertoire. 

But and also:

2 99.999% of people who will ever hear our music are not the kind of cork-sniffers who would be able to tell the difference or care about it if they could. They will react emotionally to the musical content, and it's moot whether it was recorded on a real piano or a good VI (assuming a certain baseline of good taste and technical ability).


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2021)

I can't agree with your second point @SupremeFist but only because I _do_ agree with your first, that "the difference can be more or less obvious to us depending on repertoire."

If the score leans heavily on the piano as a solo instrument, with exposed arpeggios or "Liszt-like" passages, I don't think samples will sell it adequately. There are plenty of arpeggios and exposure, for example, in Marinelli's score to a (fairly) recent "Pride and Prejudice," for example.

Even a layman can hear it. Often people who are not musicians will tell me my mockups are "just fine" -- until they hear a real orchestra play it. Then I think anyone can tell the difference, really (unless it's all buried in percussion or sound design or synths).


----------



## SupremeFist (May 12, 2021)

JohnG said:


> I can't agree with your second point @SupremeFist but only because I _do_ agree with your first, that "the difference can be more or less obvious to us depending on repertoire."
> 
> If the score leans heavily on the piano as a solo instrument, with exposed arpeggios or "Liszt-like" passages, I don't think samples will sell it adequately. There are plenty of arpeggios and exposure, for example, in Marinelli's score to a (fairly) recent "Pride and Prejudice," for example.
> 
> Even a layman can hear it. Often people who are not musicians will tell me my mockups are "just fine" -- until they hear a real orchestra play it. Then I think anyone can tell the difference, really (unless it's all buried in percussion or sound design or synths).


And yet a lot of people also loved the piano-led score to The Queen's Gambit, which iirc was Noire layered with Alicia's Keys (!). I think sampled pianos in general are more convincing to the general public than whole orchestras as yet.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 12, 2021)

Buz said:


> At the same time if anyone finds that to be in the same aural universe that's a testament to what re-peat suggested about how we all listen in our own individual way.



This is the point made about how *the consumption of recorded music over time creates a perception of what something *should* sound like to society. * In 30 years, the discussion will be about how real pianos on recordings are “too noisy” compared the “clean controlled sound of a fine sampled instrument.” It is an unstoppable reality of how culture is generated.

This is analogous to the comment about the pianoforte vs the modern grand. Pianofortes sound like ass to the modern ear (with exception for some niche aficionados).

Small aside: LA studios are littered with these beat-to-hell C7s that are in no way preferable to coming in with a nice sampled recording for the track. Nobody here argues their superiority, right?


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 12, 2021)

Also: that Olafsonn [sic?] Bach album is not really what a piano sounds like live in person either. Lots and lots of techniques utilized to capture a low-volume vibe irrespective of the player.

A brief foray into the challenge that a Synchron piano could “never sound anything like that” revealed that comment was unfounded, and even garnered the approval of other skeptics.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 12, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> 2 99.999% of people who will ever hear our music are not the kind of cork-sniffers who would be able to tell the difference or care about it if they could. They will react emotionally to the musical content, and it's moot whether it was recorded on a real piano or a good VI (assuming a certain baseline of good taste and technical ability).


This point is not wrong per sè, in my opinion, but such a slippery slope.

Most people don't know the difference between anything and anything when they listen to music.
"Was it a triangle or a bass guitar on that song?" Not a clue. 
They also really really don't give a flying ravioli about telling the difference, why should they?

Do I have the minimal idea about what technique was used to obtain this and that lighting, special effect etc in my favorite movie? Not a clue! I just know I like it, I just know I can feel a Spielberg movie looks much better then a 90s TV production. 
But it's full of "cork sniffers" that nerd about this and that video-tech detail, and they know what makes a difference, and what element will do the trick, not me the final user. 
They are the gatekeepers that are responsible for that final level of quality.

The boring car maker example should also fit: Does the consumer of a really nice car knows what components and engineering was used to make the car? The average consumer just knows if it goes fast and if the curves are smooth without knowing anything about car engineering.

It's the same for composers/producers. I know no one is going to care or notice if I used an actual hardware chain on my master bus or not for a rock track. And if i actually used a real piano for that super exposed passage. But I do, and *I* care.

So in line with what you wrote, we definitely agree, our goal is *not* to make them think we are using a real orchestra or a real piano etc.
Our only goal is to move them. This is what this is all about.

But, it's not just mental masturbational matters, it has to move and excite *me* before it moves the listener.
So when I hear certain sounds (like a real piano in this case), I am the one moved and inspired more then by using other sounds.

Having said aaall this, VIs and plugins are amazing and do an incredible job while also being big time and budget savers.

Sorry about the long post.


----------



## SupremeFist (May 12, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> This point is not wrong per sè, in my opinion, but such a slippery slope.
> 
> Most people don't know the difference between anything and anything when they listen to music.
> "Was it a triangle or a bass guitar on that song?" Not a clue.
> ...


Oh I basically agree with all this; I'm just in the demographic of composers who are excited enough by the possibilities afforded by modern VIs that I think I can get my artistic point across more than adequately by using a sampled piano, even if I know that in an ideal recording situation a $250k piano would sound better.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 12, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> Oh I basically agree with all this; I'm just in the demographic of composers who are excited enough by the possibilities afforded by modern VIs that I think I can get my artistic point across more than adequately by using a sampled piano, even if I know that in an ideal recording situation a $250k piano would sound better.


We are certainly not far apart at all as I do share the same excitement!


----------



## Living Fossil (May 12, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> We are certainly not far apart at all as I do share the same excitement!


I guess people who don't share this kind of excitement do rather not frequent this forum.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 12, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> I guess people who don't share this kind of excitement do rather not frequent this forum.


Solid perfect logic !!


----------



## cygnusdei (May 12, 2021)

Allow me to put in another 2 cents. In 1999 Philips released the Great Pianists of the 20th Century series, collating the cream of the crop of piano recordings made by 100 superlative pianists from the last century. And among these are very old recordings in mono, with noisy hiss and even out of tune pianos! Simply put, these recordings were below par in terms of sonic quality, but why on earth did they belong in the collection supposedly representing the best? I think the answer is musicianship. These are great recordings because they offer keen insight, interpreting the design of the music with inspired execution, and the musicianship shines in spite of substandard sound. Sonic quality is important, but it seems that at the end of the day it is musicianship that is paramount.

Personally, I also find that when it comes to enjoying music, interpretation comes first and sound is secondary. It's subjective, but I think performing is like speaking a language - there is a logic to it. For example, a single questionable articulation can ruin a whole performance for me, first because it totally changes the character of the piece, and second it makes me second guess if the performer understands the music at all. This is analogous to articulation in the linguistic sense: it's eCOnomy, but it's ecoNOmic. One is expected to know this as second nature and if you say it wrong people will immediately take you as non-native speaker.

That's why it's rarely that you find a performance that totally nails the interpretation from start to finish in an elusive, massive work like the Rachmaninov Concerto no. 3 for example (it's the Thibaudet/Ashkenazy recording for me, mediocre sonic quality notwithstanding). In this respect, I see a promise in VI in that if it takes 100, 1000 recordings until you find an interpretation that you absolutely love (if any), you can make the equivalent number of attempts yourself with VI, that is if you have the musicianship to pull it off (and the gear to do it).


----------



## Living Fossil (May 12, 2021)

cygnusdei said:


> Personally, I also find that when it comes to enjoying music, interpretation comes first and sound is secondary.


The interesting thing is that often there is a strange correlation between sound and music. That's why sometimes period instruments shine a very interesting light on pieces.
It may happen that a "not very good" instrument adds a very unique quality to the music, or even gives a clue about the composer's intention.
Maybe you know this video about the "Mondschein-Sonate" (the piece itself starts around 7:05):





cygnusdei said:


> That's why it's rarely that you find a performance that totally nails the interpretation from start to finish in an elusive, massive work like the Rachmaninov Concerto no. 3 for example (it's the Thibaudet/Ashkenazy recording for me, mediocre sonic quality notwithstanding). In this respect, I see a promise in VI in that if it takes 100, 1000 recordings until you find an interpretation that you absolutely love (if any), you can make the equivalent number of attempts yourself with VI, that is if you have the musicianship to pull it off (and the gear to do it).


To be fair, you could already do this with the Yamaha Disclavier, where you have a real instrument replicating midi performances.

BTW since you mentioned Rachmaninov: there are some recordings of himself playing his music on YT. They are simply fantastic, e.g. this one:


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 12, 2021)

cygnusdei said:


> a single questionable articulation can ruin a whole performance for me


Though, there's probably someone in the group of 75 musicians with an errant articulation on the Ashkenazy recording you mentioned, right?


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Small aside: LA studios are littered with these beat-to-hell C7s that are in no way preferable to coming in with a nice sampled recording for the track. Nobody here argues their superiority, right?


I do.

I don't know why you think your opinion represents a consensus, Stephen. I doubt anybody polled a bunch of composers in Los Angeles and concluded that they don't want to use a real piano.

I wrote a score quite some time ago that in part featured a pretend live performance (onscreen playing) by one of the characters and, coincidentally, we did use one of those C7s, which totally crushed the samples then, and would today too. All the rattle and resonance and sympathetic vibrations from all over the place utterly crushed then, and would today crush, the "clean" samples.

It was a pretty busy piano part.

*Rattle and Hum*

On a related topic, check out the score to "The Mummy" by Jerry Goldsmith. The brass buzzes, rattles, hums. The percussion likewise.

I realise that some people prefer the aesthetic of film music that's been tracked like a rock song -- everything separate, every note edited to within an inch of its life. But really a lot of it ends up utterly sterile and boring, sonically.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 12, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Though, there's probably someone in the group of 75 musicians with an errant articulation on the Ashkenazy recording you mentioned, right?


Ashkenazy probably would have smacked him if he did


----------



## Vik (May 12, 2021)

A lot of this has, IMO, to do with the fact that a grand piano is a large instrument, and sounds very three-dimensional when playing on it. There's nothing I've heard that's sampled which is even remotely close to playing a good version of a Hamburg Steinway D or a good Fazioli – and there are even Yamaha grand pianos that more or less have copied what Steinberg has done (even if Steinberg has patented are what they do). They sound brilliant, and it's easy to hear that even in a large piano hall where lots of other people are walking around, talking, testing out pianos etc. 

And while there's no reason to assume that one could buy something very close to an instrument which costs, say, between $170,000 and $240,000, in a recorded stereo version for $350, I guess a question about this topic on a forum like this isn't about comparing a real vs a sampled piano, but comparing a recorded version of a real piano with a sampled piano. So what I just wrote is irrelevant – I just wanted to mention the unbelievable experience it is to have a chance to play on pianos like those mentioned, for those who haven't done it yet.


----------



## SupremeFist (May 12, 2021)

JohnG said:


> I realise that some people prefer the aesthetic of film music that's been tracked like a rock song --


I mean, if you're using "like a rock song" as some kind of put-down then yeah, in the end we're arguing about taste.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 12, 2021)

Vik said:


> I just wanted to mention the unbelievable experience it is to have a chance to play on pianos like those mentioned, for those who haven't done it yet.


I did play on what must have been a Yamaha CFX once (not sure, but it must be the largest concert grand). It felt like cheating, the action was so light yet the sound huge.


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> I mean, if you're using "like a rock song" as some kind of put-down then yeah, in the end we're arguing about taste.


No, it's not a put-down. It's an utterly different way of recording, as I'm sure you would agree.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 12, 2021)

Vik said:


> isn't about comparing a real vs a sampled piano, but comparing a recorded version of a real piano with a sampled piano.


Totally. This has been my position all along, that when standing in a room, a real concert grand is going to sound better than anything that could come out of a set of speakers.

Though, between a _recording_ of a concert grand and a _recording_ of a sampled concert grand from a top flight developer (like VSL), the sampled grand not only can beat it, but is eventually going to be considered the standard piano sound... it just takes a lot of effort and time to get it right so it _can_ beat it.


----------



## SupremeFist (May 12, 2021)

JohnG said:


> No, it's not a put-down. It's an utterly different way of recording, as I'm sure you would agree.


It is now, but it's also become the way that sounds most "real" to consumers, which tends to argue in favour of Stephen's point of view.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 12, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Though, between a _recording_ of a concert grand and a _recording_ of a sampled concert grand from a top flight developer (like VSL), the sampled grand not only can beat it, but is eventually going to be considered the standard piano sound... it just takes a lot of effort and time to get it right so it _can_ beat it.


I think you are in the wrong thread, the correct thread to post this assertion is this one:





__





Has anyone experienced the supernatural?


Like the title says, I'm curious to hear your personal, first-person experience. As for me, I can't say that I have, although I want to keep an open mind. If spirits etc. exist, they must operate on a wavelength/plane removed from mine, that I lack the ability to sense them.




vi-control.net


----------



## CT (May 12, 2021)

Send me your obsolete grand pianos, VI-Control. I'll hold onto them for you.


----------



## Vik (May 12, 2021)

cygnusdei said:


> I did play on what must have been a Yamaha CFX once (not sure, but it must be the largest concert grand). It felt like cheating, the action was so light yet the sound huge.


Yes, in terms of pure mechanics, Yamaha are often a little too light – I was still amazed since they were much closer to how the best Steinways out there sound.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 12, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> I think you are in the wrong thread, the correct thread to post this assertion is this one:


Wow, deja vu


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> It is now, but it's also become the way that sounds most "real" to consumers, which tends to argue in favour of Stephen's point of view.


I am not sure what point you are even making -- either you or Stephen? By extension, are you arguing that we should ignore our experience as professional musicians and, instead, just walk down the street and decide how to realize our scores based on the Average Joe's opinion?

I'm a professional musician and I prefer my opinion to that of a non-musician. Call me nutty.

Both of you seem to be arguing that @Living Fossil and I are "wrong" to prefer a real piano. I would say it's my opinion, and that opinion is based on a fair amount of recording experience. 

*Different Goals, Different Tools*

If I'm writing a song, I record one way. If I'm writing for full orchestra, another. Ironically enough, on a song, I think it's even more useful to have a real piano than when it's just a colour in an orchestral setting.

But it all depends on the material and what you're going for, the sound you want, and all that.

If you like it, great.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 12, 2021)

JohnG said:


> I realise that some people prefer the aesthetic of film music that's been tracked like a rock song


Rock song… or a Glenn Gould recording.

I’m pretty surprised at the beat up C7s endorsement though… they’re ultra tinny and almost totally incapable of pianissimo cantabile passages. Was it loud music?


----------



## JohnG (May 12, 2021)

Rather a snotty, silly question, Stephen. 

I don't know what dog you have in this hunt. Maybe you are a paid spokesman for somebody, maybe you're just kind of full of yourself. Maybe you think you're being funny?

We just disagree, that's all.


----------



## Ivan M. (May 12, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> They are even much less convincing to my ears, unfortunately.


I found one I really like, and never used samples since


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 12, 2021)

JohnG said:


> I am not sure what point you are even making -- either you or Stephen? By extension, are you arguing that wthie should ignore our experience as professional musicians and, instead, just walk down the street and decide how to realize our scores based on the Average Joe's opinion?
> 
> I'm a professional musician and I prefer my opinion to that of a non-musician. Call me nutty.
> 
> ...


this is why this debate seems ultimately so pointless. Are VI's inferior to real pianos? of course. There are things VI's could never do as well as the real thing. Using VI's or a real piano is a creative choice that will matter more to the composer than the listener, and that choice is personal, so who cares about why VI's don't sound more like the real deal? in the right application, they do the job you need, and in some applications, they can't.

I think of how VFX are used these days and I wish we were as bold as some of the creators in that field. I can think of tons of films that have used subtle VFX to create backgrounds that would be impossible or just difficult to control. Thinking about how The Great Gatsby created their city backgrounds, or how the Mandalorian used their FXs to create their worlds and lighting all for the purpose of making things feel more real. Virtual instruments when applied properly can sometimes be like that. When the real thing is too hard to control, or just doesn't quite fit, a VI can sometimes cover that ground, and it's all for the sake of good storytelling.

If a real piano is the best thing for your storytelling have at it. If Noire does the trick, you won't hear me complain.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 12, 2021)

@JohnG not snotty... just inquiring about the context.

The "dog in the fight" is the pursuit of excellence through the exploration of what constitutes realism and may be aesthetically improved when augmenting realism. It is a noble pursuit, not a fight. 🤙🏻


----------



## martingeyer (May 12, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> View attachment la campanella excerpt.mp3
> 
> 
> There's little to complain about on the VSL 280VC responding to these repeated notes.


Mr. Limbaugh did you play that in real time? Wich midi controller do you use? I ve seen a lot of videos from you on vsl pianos and other vsl libraries as well and I admire your programming and performing ability with the sample libraries. I am a Jazz pianist and am also very interested in the sampled piano libraries but I just can't find a connection between the midi controller and the samples. I get a lot of velocity jumps and unnatural responses, I honestly hate it. But you make me believe that almost everything is possible with the sampled pianos. This little recording of la Campanella is unbelievable. Just wanted to ask wich vsl piano do you think is best for solo jazz piano recordings? Big respect for you Mr Limbaugh.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 12, 2021)

@martingeyer *very* nice of you to say, thank you! Yes, real time. 🤠

The controller used is not recommended -- it's just a Yamaha P-something (45 maybe?). It's what I am used to, but suboptimal. Going to get a better one soon.

Unfortunately, I swing like a brick... the *last* person to give decent advice on the best jazz combo of MIDI controller and sampled piano. Seriously, my jazz playing is absolutely horrible! Maybe someone else can chime in for that.


----------



## Buz (May 12, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> This is the point made about how *the consumption of recorded music over time creates a perception of what something *should* sound like to society. *


Of course - it depends what sort of sound you're after. I'd never argue otherwise. But I responded because you told re-peat he'd get what he wants by learning the tools better, in relation to specific classical recordings. Until someone actually achieves this it's pure conjecture.

If you now want to argue that people like the wrong thing, that's a different point.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 12, 2021)

@Buz Ahh... the bold part was a prediction of future tastes (20 years from now? ish?). Achieving a sound that wasn't sterile, and very real-sounding, is heavily dependent on his familiarity with the specific sampled piano.


----------



## cuttime (May 12, 2021)

This tiresome thread is the best argument I've ever seen for modeled pianos. And, no, I have no dog in this fight.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 12, 2021)

cuttime said:


> This tiresome thread is the best argument I've ever seen for modeled pianos. And, no, I have no dog in this fight.


listening to pianoteq samples right now..and it's hard. Its not bad, but there is something, odd about it. I could see using these somewhere, but there is a quality to it that is different than sampled and real. Not really a solution for this debate, but a nice alternative.


----------



## cuttime (May 12, 2021)

chocobitz825 said:


> listening to pianoteq samples right now..and it's hard. Its not bad, but there is something, odd about it. I could see using these somewhere, but there is a quality to it that is different than sampled and real. Not really a solution for this debate, but a nice alternative.


I'm not saying the technology is there. I'm saying that there are alternatives.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 12, 2021)

I


cuttime said:


> I'm not saying the technology is there. I'm saying that there are alternatives.


It’s definitely interesting.


----------



## Living Fossil (May 13, 2021)

cuttime said:


> I'm not saying the technology is there. I'm saying that there are alternatives.



My guess is that a combination of sampling, resonance modelling that captures much more of quasi-chaotic processes as well as interactive filtering (of the samples) which recreates more of the overtone behaviour of resonating strings that are re-hit at specific points will be one thing that will give
much better results as we have them now.

The other thing i'd wish are – please take this with a grain of salt – well designed and easy to handle microphone toolkits that make it easier to record the real thing. Maybe with an included software that makes it easier to filter out unwanted room resonances.

Often people think that the future is a one way street. It's not, it will go in many different directions.

The sound of sampled piano is part of our "soundscape" since forever, nobody uses the M1 piano for its authenticity.
And that typical sound of sampled felt pianos with very distinguished reverberation has proven its place in hundreds of productions.
Sampled grands will have their place in mockups as they have now.
Composers who know what a real piano has to offer will continue to record real ones for their scores.

And there will also be some people who can't afford a real piano who will happily play their prefered literature on sampled grands with great joy and passion.

And of course, people who love to listen to romantic piano literature will go to a concert house where a real instrument stands, with a real pianist. (I'm rather concerned that the ability of pianists to really execute a proper tempo rubato will degrade further. But that's another story)


----------



## re-peat (May 14, 2021)

I’m pretty sure that I know the two Synchron pianos which I have (the CFX and the D-274) as intimately as they can be known — almost down the characteristics of every single note in every dynamic range — and there’s not a single parameter or function in the software that I’m not thoroughly familiar with by now. I’ve also looked very closely at Stephen’s and Philip’s presets, not because I like the sound they’re getting out of these libraries, but just to see if perhaps I missed a cunning editing trick (it appeared that I didn’t)… but all this has achieved, instead of warming me to these pianos, is affirm my opinion that they are very poorly engineered, unwisely recorded and poorly programmed virtual pianos. (And that’s more than just an opinion: I can illustrate it with audio examples.)

Quite incapable of truly good, natural sound across the dynamic range, and most certainly *not* ready to render _anything_ in the classical repertoire — not even a Kuhlau sonatina — in a musically pleasing and timbrally convincing manner. Let alone that either of these pianos warrants any kind of belief that, some day, the recorded reality of grand pianos will be completely provided for with the sounds of sampled instruments. (And if that happens, it certainly won’t be with Synchron pianos.)

Remarkably, it is also impossible to get a truly convincing concert sound (both timbrally AND spatially) out of the D-274, despite its 11 mic perspectives. Either you get a blurry mess with a very ill-defined pianoïod presence somewhere in the centre of it, or, if you opt for more definition and clarity, you end up with something that simply lacks the concert-like majesty, depth and dimension.

That, I found, is the major recurring problem with these two Synchron pianos: it’s always either/or, you can never have both. My frustration about this is running particulary high these days as I’m working on a piece for piano and orchestra and I simply can’t make the D-274 to sound as I feel a Steinway should sound in such a context. I can make it sound the way it sounds in Bacal’s version of the Grieg concerto, sure, but I happen to think that that is a very bad pianosound and it’s also spatially compromised.

About this either/or matter: not saying that these pianos are entirely without appeal or usefulness, but the annoying thing is that if you make them sound acceptable for one thing, say, gentle soft playing, they tend to sound very unpleasant as soon as you play differently. And if you program them to do well with dramatic, high-velocity playing — which they can handle quite satisfactorily — they become very disappointing during those parts when things need to calm down a little.

In the piece I’m working on, I have now three different instances of the D-274 loaded, all programmed and edited very differently in order to handle the different parts assigned to them as best as they can. There’s an instance for the upper register (edited to minimize that thin, clangy, clattering sound which is the D-274’s default timbre), and instance for the lowest octaves (with different dynamic response than the higher octaves and also more resonance), a third instance for the softer moments in the music (different dynamic and MIDI sensitivity settings, and also EQ’ed differently) and I’m seriously thinking of adding a fourth instance to cope with the problematic mid-range of the D-274.

I’m in total agreement with what several people already have said about good virtual pianos being the preferable and certainly most convenient choice in many musical situations (especially when recording) and in the future, virtual instruments will only get better and gain ground, possibly reducing the need for a real instrument to the live stage, or recording sessions involving very discerning musicians (I can’t imagine someone like, say, András Schiff ever being found prepared to record with anything but a top-quality real instrument), or the ostentatious living rooms of the rich, but that future is still a long way away.
Talking about today, I remain firmly of the opinion that nothing in the virtual world is even close to ready to give you the glow, the richness, the nuances, the range, the poetry, the roar, the tenderness and the brutality, the expressive versatility, the colours, the embrace … in short: the beauty of a well-recorded real instrument.

_


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 14, 2021)

I wonder if we're just trying too hard to turn processed food into organic food here. I mean there is always room for improvement, but so much time and concern spent on trying to get virtual instruments to be a replacement for real seems like a fool's errand. These virtual instruments have come so far and to demand they do more than they already can seem like a stretch. It seems the more logical thing is to play to their strengths, and when they can't do what's needed, go with the real thing.

Thinking back on the CGI equivalent, I've found the best applications of CGI are subtle elements in the background. Things you're not looking directly at and things that don't draw your attention to how unreal everything is. They're used to express the fantastical and unreal. Massive landscapes or period-accurate backgrounds or effects only imagined in fantasy. They work by supporting and elevating the real elements at the core of the scene. You can make an entire set of CGI and have it be convincing because the actors and cinematography are grounded and feel real. Put CGI up in the center though, and it's the uncanny valley when it tries to do things that we know in reality.

In the same way, I think VI's will almost never cover it for "realistic" exposed presentation of the main emotional and melodic theme of a song. Maybe you could have most of the entire orchestra made up of VI's, but when it comes to those exposed solo pianos, strings, or whatever, nothing will beat the real thing....and at that point, it might totally be within your budget to record an exposed solo player if you covered the rest with VI.

So maybe these solo pianos were just never meant to really cover the full needs of solo, exposed, complex work. Maybe they're all just best served as support and foundation.


----------



## re-peat (May 14, 2021)

chocobitz825 said:


> I wonder if we're just trying too hard to turn processed food into organic food here. I mean there is always room for improvement, but so much time and concern spent on trying to get virtual instruments to be a replacement for real seems like a fool's errand.


True, very-very true, but these things are sold with the assured claim that they can do what I want them to do: sound and behave like a well-recorded real instrument. And loyal adepts, of which there have been several in this thread, keep insisting that with these instruments the gap between virtual and real is as good as bridged. 
None of this however is in any way justified, in my experience. Far from it, in fact. Hence the disappointment, and discussions such as these.

_


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 14, 2021)

re-peat said:


> True, very-very true, but these things are sold with the assured claim that they can do what I want them to do: sound and behave like a well-recorded real instrument. And loyal adepts, of which there have been several in this thread, keep insisting that with these instruments the gap between virtual and real is as good as bridged.
> None of this however is in any way justified, in my experience. Far from it, in fact. Hence the disappointment, and discussions such as these.
> 
> _


Guess we’ll have to go back to the days of the disclaimer.

“Buyer beware. Results may vary”


----------



## CGR (May 14, 2021)

chocobitz825 said:


> I wonder if we're just trying too hard to turn processed food into organic food here. I mean there is always room for improvement, but so much time and concern spent on trying to get virtual instruments to be a replacement for real seems like a fool's errand. These virtual instruments have come so far and to demand they do more than they already can seem like a stretch. It seems the more logical thing is to play to their strengths, and when they can't do what's needed, go with the real thing . . .


Ditto!


----------



## CGR (May 14, 2021)

As advanced as sampled/virtual pianos have become, I continue to produce piano tracks of supplied MIDI files for musicians and producers by recording the MIDI enabled acoustic Hamburg Steinway Model D at the studio, and not just for solo piano. The most recent project we completed was a piano driven pop oriented album. The artist and producer had access to the best sampled pianos available, and still chose to remotely record the real thing.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 14, 2021)

CGR said:


> As advanced as sampled/virtual pianos have become, I continue to produce piano tracks of supplied MIDI files for musicians and producers by recording the MIDI enabled acoustic Hamburg Steinway Model D at the studio, and not just for solo piano. The most recent project we completed was a piano driven pop oriented album. The artist and producer had access to the best sampled pianos available, and still chose to remotely record the real thing.


That sounds like a great compromise!


----------



## Mr Greg G (May 14, 2021)

One of my friends is graduated from the Pyotr Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine (used to be run by some random dudes called Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff). She owns a Grand Piano. And you know what, when at home, instead of recording her Grand Piano and messing around with microphones, dealing with reflections and phasing issues headaches, she just records her Piano parts with Native Instruments Alicia's Keys. Most of these parts end up being the final takes for the projects.

So I'd say, what is good enough for her, is good enough for me and my Piano skills of a new born child.


----------



## CGR (May 14, 2021)

Mr Pringles said:


> One of my friends is graduated from the Pyotr Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine (used to be run by some random dudes called Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff). She owns a Grand Piano. And you know what, when at home, instead of recording her Grand Piano and messing around with microphones, dealing with reflections and phasing issues headaches, she just records her Piano parts with Native Instruments Alicia's Keys.
> 
> So I'd say, what is good enough for her, is good enough for me and my Piano skills of a new born child.


Yep - recording an acoustic piano in a home environment can be a real headache, regardless of the standard of the performer and quality of the piano.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 14, 2021)

In the quest to describe reality, philosophers have made a distinction between simulation (representation of original reality) and simulacrum (representation of a reality with no prior original). In this sense one could say that the connoisseur takes VI as a simulation, whereas to the lay people it's a simulacrum (they have no idea how a real piano sounds). Put it another way, who is your audience?


----------



## SupremeFist (May 14, 2021)

cygnusdei said:


> In the quest to describe reality, philosophers have made a distinction between simulation (representation of original reality) and simulacrum (representation of a reality with no prior original). In this sense one could say that the connoisseur takes VI as a simulation, whereas to the lay people it's a simulacrum (they have no idea how a real piano sounds). Put it another way, who is your audience?


My audience is just Jean Baudrillard, and he's not even alive any more.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 14, 2021)

re-peat said:


> I’ve also looked very closely at Stephen’s and Philip’s presets,


What presets?


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 14, 2021)

cygnusdei said:


> In this sense one could say that the connoisseur takes VI as a simulation, whereas to the lay people it's a simulacrum (they have no idea how a real piano sounds).


Very shrewd comment. I would add that many VI enthusiasts have inaccurate thoughts about what certain instruments actually sound like if next to them in a room, as well. Or, simulacrum that everything recently sampled still sounds like things made 2006.

(…there is a discussion somewhere about live strings in a concert sounding “fake” that might be worth digging up.)


----------



## SupremeFist (May 14, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Very shrewd comment. I would add that many VI enthusiasts have inaccurate thoughts about what certain instruments actually sound like if next to them in a room, as well. Or, simulacrum that everything recently sampled still sounds like things made 2006.
> 
> (…there is a discussion somewhere about live strings in a concert sounding “fake” that might be worth digging up.


There's some (maybe inverse) analogy here as well to the way some guitarists criticise the current generation of amp modellers for being eg "fizzy", without taking into account the fact that the signal from a 57 slung over the front of a cab will absolutely be fizzy too. I have for sure made some guitar recordings through modellers that I couldn't tell apart from amped guitars in a blind listening test. Would I still prefer to play through a raging amp? Absolutely! But one's satisfaction with the end result is all that matters.


----------



## cygnusdei (May 14, 2021)

SupremeFist said:


> My audience is just Jean Baudrillard, and he's not even alive any more.


Lol, I guess credit for the concept goes to him although the term had already existed and had a different nuance.


----------



## re-peat (May 14, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> What presets?


The ones that can be downloaded from the VSL forum pages. There's five from Philip and one from you.

_


----------



## cygnusdei (May 14, 2021)

Mr Pringles said:


> One of my friends is graduated from the Pyotr Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine (used to be run by some random dudes called Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff). She owns a Grand Piano. And you know what, when at home, instead of recording her Grand Piano and messing around with microphones, dealing with reflections and phasing issues headaches, she just records her Piano parts with Native Instruments Alicia's Keys. Most of these parts end up being the final takes for the projects.
> 
> So I'd say, what is good enough for her, is good enough for me and my Piano skills of a new born child.


That's amazing, considering that the product is from 2010 (unless I'm wrong, or she has upgraded to newer offering since).


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 14, 2021)

re-peat said:


> The ones that can be downloaded from the VSL forum pages.


Ahh. Well how were you using it? For a solo concert piano work or contextual scoring? Also that was created before the velocity curve editor was added, the attack smoothing parameter, and also doesn’t have high polyphony by default.


----------



## re-peat (May 14, 2021)

I’m not using any of those presets, Stephen. I only downloaded them to see if I could learn something from them. And you’re right, with the software since being updated — a very good update, by the way (although I wish more of the parameters, like the Smooth Attack or the Timbre Shift for example, could be applied on a per note level rather than globally) — those older presets have lost some of their interest.

_


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (May 14, 2021)

re-peat said:


> I only downloaded them to see if I could learn something from them.


Uh… but did you play something? What was it? Or did you just look to see what was going on with the mics? What did you notice was done with the different registers on the edit page?


----------



## Mr Greg G (May 14, 2021)

cygnusdei said:


> That's amazing, considering that the product is from 2010 (unless I'm wrong, or she has upgraded to newer offering since).


This piano library was well crafted and thought, it sounds great out of the box without the need to tweak anything. Yet you can tweak and turn knobs if you feel like it. Beauty and simplicity. Carlos Rafael Rivera also still uses it extensively like on the Queen‘s Gambit score. Check the recent Spitfire Audio on how he scored some scenes for this show (spoiler warning though), you will spot Alicia’s Keys for the Piano parts.


----------



## pinki (Jun 23, 2021)

So having read this thread through the two posters arguing the "the public don't know the difference, don't care and don't know what the real instrument sounds like" have offered
1. A drumkit and
2. A guitar amp with a 57

as evidence in a discussion about high end pianos. 

Oh and insulted a working LA composer for using one of those "tinny" C7 pianos in the studios.

I call VSL shill. Brown envelopes?


----------



## Ben (Jun 23, 2021)

pinki said:


> I call VSL shill. Brown envelopes?


You are kidding, right? We have a 14 days return policy, and on top of that you can get free 30 days demos during the current pianos sale to check out these libraries yourself.
Why should we pay for anyones opinion and at the same time make it so easy to test-drive our libraries / return them?!?


----------



## Nimrod7 (Jun 23, 2021)

pinki said:


> I call VSL shill. Brown envelopes?


I never brought anything from VSL and regretted it. 
Their Pianos are also on my list, and they are all well respected.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jun 23, 2021)

pinki said:


> Oh and insulted a working LA composer


I _am_ a working LA composer, and I never once felt insulted by the others, but I do appreciate the concern. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻#blessed


Edit: also, see this thread for reference point. https://vi-control.net/community/threads/i-think-samples-are-ruining-me.97948/


----------



## pinki (Jun 23, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> I _am_ a working LA composer, and I never once felt insulted by the others, but I do appreciate the concern. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻#blessed
> 
> 
> Edit: also, see this thread for reference point. https://vi-control.net/community/threads/i-think-samples-are-ruining-me.97948/


Good for you, then try to have an open mind and be kind. You are behaving like a knob in this thread.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Jun 23, 2021)

pinki said:


> Good for you, then try to have an open mind and be kind. You are behaving like a knob in this thread.


Ok, but you've read the re-peat guy's other posts in other piano threads, right? Or when he comments on other forum members' work? Have you heard him _actually_ _play_ piano? This particular user's history warrants some consideration.


----------

