prodigalson
Senior Member
If this was sampled at Lyndhurst, is it fair to assume its the same Steinway sampled in HZP?
It's a really beautiful sampled piano, very versatile, nice tone and full of life. Love it.
I have to admit that when I first came across this last week and bought a copy I thought "think I've just found an undiscovered gem here!" (I WAS about to post a thread about it and then saw this thread - promise!)I have one bone to pick with this library being released:
I want y'all to forget about it completely so I can have it all to myself.
It's a really beautiful sampled piano, very versatile, nice tone and full of life. Love it.
If this was sampled at Lyndhurst, is it fair to assume its the same Steinway sampled in HZP?
Good question... I have the HZP, and I was struck by how similar the wet HZP Room sound is in tone. The sampling is completely different, of course, which makes it hard to tell. And we don't know what mics were used in either case. And the end result is different, as a result. But it sure sounds more like a Hamburg than a NY, which puts it in the HZP camp.
Yes, more intimate, subtle, and less manipulated than HZP, which I think of as a "scoring" piano more than a "playing" piano. HZP can be made to sound indistinguishable from a very, very good studio recording, certainly indistinguishable from a real recording on a lot of material. But it has a mush factor that is (thankfully) absent from this vst.definitely, and, it seems HZP sampled the in house piano at Lyndhurst so unless simple Sam brought in their own piano it stands to reason its the same instrument.
I really like HZP and it seems like this instrument would give me just what I find lacking in HZP which is a more uniformly intimate and subtle sound.
I'm really enjoying the Signature Grand for slow, sparse pieces, where you can hear the piano ring out in the Hall:
Yup... that's exactly my thought, as your demo shows in spades.
And there's just NO WAY (on God's good earth) that any set of ears will distinguish your cut from the same performance at a well-tuned Steinway recorded with state of the art microphones placed in exactly the right place relative to the piano (a very difficult thing to do, even for the pros.) You'll get different, for sure. But you won't get better in this material at least. That's my feeling.
How this vst might sound with dense material .... that should be interesting. But so good on this stuff, honestly.
In addition to a much softer value for the Response parameter — which I agree is an instant improvement —, the default setting for the inserted Limiter is incomprehensibly wrong and damaging. Remove the Saturator, the Tape and definitely that aggressive Limiter out of the Insert-slots, or disable them, and all the patches immediately play and sound much better.So far, I only like the first 'Classical' preset, all the others have too much compression, limiting or tape saturation.
I could hear that limiting/compression going on but hadn't looked under the hood in Kontakt. Thought it was in the samples, so it's good to know they can be disabled. Thanks for the tip.In addition to a much softer value for the Response parameter — which I agree is an instant improvement —, the default setting for the inserted Limiter is incomprehensibly wrong and damaging. Remove the Saturator, the Tape and definitely that aggressive Limiter out of the Insert-slots, or disable them, and all the patches immediately play and sound much better.
Bizarre choice to have those FX, with such extreme settings, in there._
In addition to a much softer value for the Response parameter — which I agree is an instant improvement —, the default setting for the inserted Limiter is incomprehensibly wrong and damaging. Remove the Saturator, the Tape and definitely that aggressive Limiter out of the Insert-slots, or disable them, and all the patches immediately play and sound much better.
Bizarre choice to have those FX, with such extreme settings, in there.
_