Whereas in the Pianoteq's case the main purpose is to be able to manipulate the compressed samples with fairly decent ability to change timbre, resonances, etc. whose only purpose is to store the original samples as faithful as possible. Stepping into Modartt's shoes and provided my assumption about how their stuff works are correct, I believe their audio compressions is in a domain that allows changes of various "compression" parameters to recreate changes in soundboard behavior, string interaction, etc. ^ JoeT, indeed, I have those questions too. I wouldn't even call it modeling to be honest but once again my understanding might be entirely wrong.
would affect how those partial would evolve in time depending on the actual parameter change.Īll that is kind of heuristics but to my limited understanding seems like a very long shot at modeling. Also, changing parameters of the piano such as soundboard size, string materials, etc. In other words it's a clever audio compression of the original samples. The patent itself states that such a finite modeling is impractical and won't allow realtime playing.Īnd so it seems they have actually recorded real piano samples and analyzed them in their labs to observe how the partials (sine waves that constitute a piano note being played) change with the time. So, with all the above being said, my understanding of the Pianoteq patent is that it's not an actual (proper) physical modeling of a piano. I'm saying all that as a disclaimer why my following statements might be entirely wrong. Furthermore, the English language and style in these patents always seems pretty weird even for a non-native English speaker. I don't have enough time to do so in detail and also understanding this matter requires strong mathematical knowledge. I know that's not the case for everyone here. I was just saying that when everybody starts talking about how obvious it is, they should "put their money where there mouth is", as dmd remarked as wellĪlbeit, that is rather biased if one reads everybody's take on it then says their opinion.Īnd while I do agree that the attack sounds better on the acoustic, and you can hear the dampers and the percussion of the hammer, personally I also feel that the overall sound is quite good, remarkably similar, as for actually playing the VST, it fares better than any I have tried, for me personally. I also remember you mentioning that you have PT pro, so you're quite well acquainted with it, probably better so than most people who actually use it (including me).
During the rather long time I have been surfing the forum, I've seen your musical, as well as technical skill, and I didn't doubt you could tell. I have now listened to it through headphones and I must admit the last one is not so clear but it is too short and quiet.īut anyway, I have absolutely no interest in convincing anyone that I can or cannot distinguish Pianoteq from a real piano Even if you are convinced I am biased and/or have lied, that's OK with meĪctually I was speaking for the other respondents mostly. I was not sure if the rest of the test is always piano A, then piano B. I heard only the first two comparisons on my laptop speakers, it was extremely obvious which is which and I stopped it. Maybe they simply agreed with the previous posters, or maybe they were a little shy to clearly take a pick, just în case they may be mistaken?! Actually there were others who said they can clearly hear the Pianoteq tone or speaking of PT's sound signature without mentioning if it's A or B or if in the first section it's a, then b, then a again, etc.
0 kommentar(er)
