What's new

Ivory Piano vs Pianoteq - Steinway D

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

But kudos for removing your post, Living Fossil, I guess. :)
 
hey, I agree with Living Fossil though. And I agree with you Evil Dragon about the modeling aspects I described. You are both right in my opinion. I have a 7 foot Mason and Hamlin grand piano in my living room which I play on a regular basis and played many other pianos for almost 50 years before that, and I can say with certainty that I agree with the people that don't think pianoteq always sounds like a real piano. Well then I have played some uprights that didn't sound like a real piano too! haha
 
But I can also say that sometimes its enjoyable to play true pianos (and maybe pIanoteq if I get some better presets), but sometimes I rather play and hear the sampled one..it just depends on the situation and I do find myself reaching for the ravenscoft more often then not.
 
I think the only sample library that made me inspired to just PLAY it rather than be annoyed about uneven velocity layers or crap response to my input was Noire... But even that was mainly because of the Particles engine, heh...
 
I know how a piano sounds. Pianoteq definitely sounds like a piano.

I guess it's pointless to continue...
There is a very distinct fakeness in the sound. If you don't hear that, it's ok for you. But it doesn't make the fakeness disappear. And those people, who can hear it, are not hearing it because they are too stupid not to hear it but because they are able to perceive it. ;)
 
I never said anyone's stupid because of something they're hearing or not.

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


Also, sometimes I do wonder how would all of us fare in a double blind test...
 
I am annoyed by ALL software pianos for the same reason. At this point I simply do not sit down and tinker around on a software piano at all...my M&H upstairs is about a thousand times more inspiring and enjoyable to play. But that is a luxury I know most people don't have, myself included until semi recently..so I get it. But anyway that's where I think its at right now, there is simply no perfect software piano yet. They all have some pros and cons and a lot will depend on the individual and what they want to hear as to which ones is the right fit.
 
I will say this however, in terms of laying down some piano mixed in with orchestra or something like that, I will take a good sampled one any day over modeled. I'm with Living Fossil on that one, I think pianoteq still misses the mark a little bit, notwithstanding that the velocity scaling is perfectly modeled, and the sympathetic resonances are all happening between which notes you're playing and all the rest...

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

I think either solution will sound fine if its buried deep in a mix, but when it comes to the front...I would personally prefer sampled. but to each their own...
 
How about trying to formulate that in some more objectively quantifiable terms? Audio examples welcome.

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

And btw. you really don't need double blind tests for Pianoteq. It's really very obvious...
 
Apparently it's not THAT obvious otherwise I wouldn't be asking more specifically what you mean. And I hope you're not passive-aggresively implying that I'm deaf, now.
 
This is a worthwhile video for everyone to watch..its an hour, so make time for it, but I promise its worthwhile and might be applicable here:



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

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

No, i'm not implying that you're deaf.
For me and other ones the differences are obvious, while they are not obvious for you.
Such situations occur...
 
I guess it's called being biased :) Since you know it's Pianoteq as soon as you see it producing the audio, you're always gonna dislike it, while for me it's the other way around.
 
I guess it's called being biased :) Since you know it's Pianoteq as soon as you see it producing the audio, you're always gonna dislike it, while for me it's the other way around.

Ok, you didn't read my statement above:
As i've written, there was a blind test at youtube that didn't tell you what is Pianoteq and what not.
Lots of different snippets.
And i made that test. It was ridiculously easy for me to hear which was pianoteq and what not without knowing the solutions (that's why it's called a blind test)....
And when i looked at the solutions i saw that i had them all right.
Which was no surprise, of course.
Because it's really obvious.
 
If you made that test then you're automatically biased since you know (even if subconsciously) when which one plays - unless you used something like foobar's ABX plugin to create that test. EDIT: I suppose by "I made that test" you meant "I passed that test", so scratch the aforementioned.

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

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


If you're so good at hearing what's "wrong" with Pianoteq, you're like a perfect beta tester for it! Your presence there could likely bring it to a whole new level then. But of course, this is where you'd probably straight up decline to do that even if presented with possibility - right? :)
 
Last edited:
If you made that test then you're automatically biased since you know (even if subconsciously) when which one plays - unless you used something like foobar's ABX plugin to create that test.

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