PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

http://www.acousticsamples.net/

This is a really good sounding Piano and for the price it's a steal.
The Lite version is equally as good.
Optimized for K 3.5.
Check out the video.

wow.. I was dreaming of a kawaii sample lib.. though now it seems a little obsolete esp with recent updates to pianoteq. It's just funny going back to traditional sample libs, and hear about how there not 1, but 5 release samples now, or how there are not 4, but 5 velocity layers.. I really like the sounds though, and at $130 it's not too bad.

Yeah PTeqPro is the ticket. That compressed sound can easily be overcome by having 88 zones for editing...!! That was my only complaint that the sound wasn't raw enough and too smooth & pretty.
Sample libraries will just keep adding more mic positions, more layers, more crappy reverbs and still forget to look under the harp and see that other pedal.
PTeqPro is the whole package, and the reason it's the go to Piano for performers is because it actually plays and feels like a Piano.

The Kawaii Grands were always super heavy on the action. I could barely finish certain classical peices. But the short 6" Kawaii had such a big sound. I saw engineers closing the lid on the mics and getting some really rich harmonics. Usually mics were placed short and long inside the harp and the lid was always up.

I heard this cheezy Liberace immatator last month with the Candelabra and sequence...
But I have to admit the guy was a little sloppy on the chops, but the Helpenstill pick ups he used were awesome. He had 2 mics and the Helpenstill's and it was the best Acoustic Grand sound I think I ever heard. Usually mic'd Grands lose their realism from excessive Mids, but this guys ears were 100%. Perfect amplified sound. After hearing those powerful dynamics, playing my PTeq or Grand samples was disappointing...

Moved 2 hired-in Steinway 9'ers today bumpin' the ballet outta the Regal

Aaah. Played 1 chord on the shiny one.

But, at last the theatre is trading up the little C1 out the back to a C5, which will make my smokos playing Monk a bit more fun.

I learnt on a Kawaii baby grand at Edna's place next door - not as easy to play as our cheap old upright, for sure.

I'm a full novice in the sampled piano thing - never had one until now, so i'm enjoying the one that came with Sonar (TruePiano base model) - even with my ancient plastic 61 controller, a Kawaii Midi Key II

Going to post an A/B mp3 comparison of Pianoteq versus QL. Pianoteq is bad.

braincell wrote:Going to post an A/B mp3 comparison of Pianoteq versus QL. Pianoteq is bad.

Just in case you delet the post.
____________________________________________________________________________

Yepp........that'll definately make PTeq users go for the RAID Piano w/o pedals......
I had QLP and of course it sounds good, but it has no sos pedal, is way too big for my taste and feels like every other sample library.
Besides, Pianists like instruments that inspire composition and performance, that's why we can use a 40 USD Grand and make it sound good. Don't need the " mic " placements, and bathed in reverb presets.
You either make music or excuses, a library won't change that.
Oh and BTW, the version you download won't be the latest and lacks the best features, but I look forward to your " performance."

I don't use any of the reverb in QL. The sound of the recording is what matters not various performance features. Music is for listeners not for the musicians. Mic placement creates a sound. Not having a choice of placement is only going to limit your sound! It's so funny you have a problem with the cost of QL (I paid to upgrade not the full cost) yet you are willing to plunk down $3,000 for an Xite when you already owned a Scope card. That is what I call too expensive! I don't just have RAID for the piano. It works great with all my audio tracks. It is damn fast. I went to 100 tracks of 24 bit audio with no glitches. I did not test it beyond that so I don't know how far it would go because 100 tracks is more than I need.

I am surprised the demo lacks features because the only thing they mention that it is missing some of the notes.

braincell wrote:I don't use any of the reverb in QL. The sound of the recording is what matters not various performance features. Music is for listeners not for the musicians. Mic placement creates a sound. Not having a choice of placement is only going to limit your sound! It's so funny you have a problem with the cost of QL (I paid to upgrade not the full cost) yet you are willing to plunk down $3,000 for an Xite when you already owned a Scope card. That is what I call too expensive! I don't just have RAID for the piano. It works great with all my audio tracks. It is damn fast. I went to 100 tracks of 24 bit audio with no glitches. I did not test it beyond that so I don't know how far it would go because 100 tracks is more than I need.

I am surprised the demo lacks features because the only thing they mention that it is missing some of the notes.

The sound of the live performance in a single take enviroment is what matters, therfore the features. Jump on a stage and perform w/ a sampled library and no sostenuto and you'll understand the sostenuto is your 3rd hand. To perform w/o is no problem, but you are now limited in your styles where the sos is required. A lack of features and options is a performers concern.
______________________________________________________________________________

Cost is not an issue an you pointed out. QLP was cheap for me as I had the very first edition. I liked the Bosendorfer because of the well recorded lowest octave.
Performance features are what inspires. Having a sostenuto is an advantage unless of course you're sequencing the Piano. Performers use and take advantage of such features, and actually performing is what matters. Recording, is a way of perfecting your takes and adding/deleting/quantizing features, performers get one take so inspiration is what matters, correct pedals matter, translation of the music matters. Recording and Performing are 2 seperate venues, and shouldn't be treated as if one is better than the other.
I agree fake Pianos have a long way to go, but I look forward to that day. But leaving out important features and replacing them w/ mic placements, reverbs and 12 different release samples, etc. is hardly realistic, but does make the user feel as though he is getting "more".
The only kind of placements I see useful are close to the hammer for more " wood " or in the harp for more harmonic content. M/S EQ's can easily be used for depth, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if several of these " placements " are simply samples copied over through a plug.
And even the best recording through the best speakers set up next to a real Piano at the same db levels cannot compare. However, there is a certain beauty that can be added through recording that is what makes the difference and has a certain appeal. I just prefer to have both by having good sound, performance features, and an option of plugs for live variations. But a Piano w/o the compliment of pedals is a lack of skill from the developer. And you'll hear numerous excuses of why it can't be implemented, but they realize they are selling to hobbyists who will never use the sos because they can do multiple takes. Professional Pianists and recording artists have access to the real instrument.
Actually going back in and doing a sostenuto track would be difficult IMO, that's why the first take is important.
Being an Avant Garde lover I'd think you'd be upset at not having the sos. It is crucial to sustain a harmonic cadence, while having two hands to follow up with.
I have a friend who does an Avant Garde Ragtime piece that is a riot, and quite an example of perfect pedalling. He uses close to 100 instances of it throughout the peice. And he uses PTeq when a Grand or Upright isn't available.
Another feature I think you might like is the rare Harmonic Pedal. Play that and tell me if you aren't inspired to make dissonant clusters, or even fast whole tone scales, ascending or descending. Sample developers are just a little too geared towards the marketing and incomplete renditions for my tastes.
As an experiment use PTeq and QLP on the same MIDI channel and remap the controllers so no volume is on the PTeq, and no pedals on the QLP. Perhaps the pedals might work and you can enhance the lack of pedals on the QLP. You might even want to buy the CME 3 way if it works. QLP would be a monster if that could be achieved.
BTW the above Kawaii lacks proper ppp layers. So you see I never see a sample library that has it all yet. PTeq is as close as it can get right now.

FWIW I paid 4 large for the XITE-1 as the cost was 3434 at the time of my purchase, and GaryB's invaluable 24 hour keytech service is worth way more than the extra I paid. I always want to make sure people I do business with in selling or buying are happy. A Sore Dick Deal should always be considered where repeat business will occur.

Having another mic placement is a benefit. It's so very incredibly hilarious that you think it's bad to have more than one placement of the mic. It gives you a lot more control over the sound of it. Don't be ridiculous in your argument.

braincell wrote:Having another mic placement is a benefit. It's so very incredibly hilarious that you think it's bad to have more than one placement of the mic. It gives you a lot more control over the sound of it. Don't be ridiculous in your argument.

Unnecessary was the word I used. Harp and Wood are what I like. Distance is an effect easily done with a good " placement " plug. I just prefer I choose the distance, I don't need 12 different recordings using a plug that I probably already have.
So what about the pedals. Lets discuss that. How do you make up for that lack of features, or do you just compose for an incomplete instrument.
I could easily get by with a lack of distance as opposed to a lack of real instrument features

I think pteq vs sample lib thing is going to be over soon. The pro version with per note tweaking will allow for much more realistic hammer tweaks. And also, mic positioning is sort of obsolete because you can mic the piano from anywhere in pteq.

QL piano is good, but pteq is really kicking serious arse now. I've looked down on them forever because it sounded like crap. But while it's not 100% there yet, but it's to the point where I can just load in my favorite piano sound that I tweaked to perfection, just play the thing, and get over with it. The pro version is definitely worth a check. The effect of the unlimited velocity layer, and a fully live set of strings grows on you over the course of months. So it's hard to feel the difference on initial playing.

I'm skeptical because I heard someone say the same thing about the previous version. I do not care about playability. I care only about the sound of it. What's wrong with the demo? Why is the demo not the same sound?

ah, well, if it's not playability than pteq might not matter for you. The way the energy builds in the strings feels very right, unlike any sample lib. It's not even a question of how a lib sounds, the problem is that there is nothing in place to emulate the energy buildup in samples libs. When you roll an octave in the left, the sound doesn't build right. Pteq is not perfect, but it's feels much more natural. The overall sound of it though, I agree is a little funky. Alot of it is just micing position (in the virtual space) though.

What's interesting is that since going to 100% pteq, it's much easier for me to get good performance out of sample libs, probably because my sensitivity and ability to control velocity has increased much more because of pteq's full resolution. In the end, I agree, it's the sound. And that's what I've been (still do) complain about to the pteq people. Pteq pro will solve many of the current problems I hope.

What is scary is that while I was using sample libs, with anything from 4 layers to 14 (or something like that, on sampletekk TBO) that really affected the resolution I heard at, and played at. Then for example when I'd go to Tokyo and play on my acoustic for 2 weeks, and come back, I'd be playing at a much higher resolution.. but then my playing goes out of whack when I get back to the samples. It's easy to tell from how easy (or how difficult) it is to adjust to my teacher's yamaha disclavier. For performing, it may not matter how many layers you have, but for practicing, I think it's mega important that you play with the highest velocity resolution possible.

Don't be so hard sold on quantum leap, or on sampling for that matter.. give pteq a test drive for a month or two, spend some time creating your favorite patch. Many times I'll track with pteq, mix the tracks, and if it works, I'll leave it. If it doesn't, I'll try to swap it out with some sample lib. Technology wise, I think both you and I know that it's the way to go. The question is whether it's ready or not.

To indulge me by continuing this segue a bit...

I think that the path creating software instrument models based around existing instruments has followed a similar arc to other software instruments, trying to emulate & recreate something that existed before. But I understand Ken & Jimmy's need for something 'playable' in the sense of getting feedback from an instrument. Sometimes the level of expression that enables can sidestep purely analytical concerns (sound quality etc).

Personally when I use Kontakt, EXS24 or etc it's more likely to be without huge sample libs. Tools like Pianoteq, Sculpture & AAS's modelling tools (like String Studio) still fall far from sounding like the 'real thing' of course, but given enough of a range in values on the more useful parameters I think they are excellent as sound design tools to create playable instruments outside of the norm.

For me personally this has always been a huge part of the appeal to electronic & digital music creation & production. So much so in fact that the upright piano has been back at my mother's house for some years (it's just too big with the frequency that I move and lack of frequency of use) and I must admit I haven't owned a guitar for some years now either. Though I might also sheepishly admit I was never a prodigy on either (having long since settled into bad habits/comfortable forms.) Now that I'm getting older (and perhaps more boring) I have had occasional longings again for the instruments I learned in my youth. But I still find myself preferring exploring new sonic territory over trying to emulate something that I can just as easily record or sample anyway.

I could poke some fun at braincell's need for a glorified MOD player here ("Finally after all these years! My MODS sound PERFECT!") but really I have to admit that none of the approaches expressed here are 'wrong', some are just outside of the scope of the original post. On that note, I wonder Jimmy how far a Kontakt lib can be pushed in terms of sound design and how 'playable' would that be? (ie, back to the topic at hand...)

I never said that anything was perfect Valis. Why do you put it that way?

Read that sentence closer...the idea is that you can pick anything apart if you want to try hard enough, no?

Basically, you say care about the sound quality and I'm suggesting that's in a sense that maters to you. If others care about how responsive the playing feels to them and feel that impacts the 'performance' qualities for them, one might also think that this can perhaps translate into the resulting audio (or 'sound') as well...no? And as for me, the 'sound' that might make me opt for a new package has a lot less to do with incredible realism or RAID-gobbling install sizes, but rather the potential for tweaking...

You only have to tweak something that is inherently flawed to begin with. What's all this worry about sample bank size? Have you seen how cheap hard drives are lately? You need to buy one.

Filters are inherently broken? Ie, a filter imparts a spectral/timbral change, other controls can effect other changes...

I give, the more I continue this though the more Pythonesque this is becoming.

Acoustic pianos don't have filters though, other than the lid.