Best, unmetallic piano for a songwriter

[Jake Johnson]

The pianos made for giga seem largely intended for solo classical pianists.
After listening to all the mpgs at the three piano comparison web sites, I have yet to find a giga piano that has the sound I want.

I want the sound of clear ringing notes, with overtones and without the brassy, metalic sound that appears to come from placing mics close to the strings instead of futher away, which would give the notes the space to form (without pushing us into the back of a hall). I also want good clear samples in the two octaves on either side of middle C, where I spend so much time.

The sound of the Malmsjö Grand comes closest to this sound, but it seems a little quiet on the mpgs. (Is this my imagination?)

The trouble may be that all of the pianos I\'ve heard are sampled grands, recorded with the lids up. I might better get the sound I want from a grand sampled with the lid down and from the player\'s position, or slightly further back. OR from a sampled studio, maybe a Steinway studio. I think, in other words, that the sound I want is the sound of the notes when the crisp, brassy string vibrations have been muffled\\muted\\absorbed and conditioned by the wood. After all, the sound I hear while playing a piano is not the sound of strings vibrating, but instead the sound made when the vibrations of the strings vibrate the sound board and cabinet. (My first instrument was acoustic guitar, and I learned there that a good recording captures not the vibration of the strings but of the sound board, which is after all responsible for amplifying the sound. To record the string alone and then amplify that sound is to get a loud version of a thin string vibrating, bypassing the wood that gives the intrument its timbre.)

Clearly, I am not a sound engineer. Let me apologize in advance if my ignorance about the difficulties of sampling a piano are too clearly evident.

On the other hand, does anyone know of a sampled piano that captures the full, liquid, woody timbre I\'m trying to describe, that would let me hold down a G major chord for example, or a Bud Powell 7/3 chord, and hear those great sounds without the metallic timbre?

Thanks.

[Sam]

I think almost all the piano samples I have heard are close mic\'d, lid open or off (malmso is probably one of the few exceptions to close micing).

I also don\'t like metallic pianos, which includes too many pianos and way too many samples... To synthesize a metallic sound you use an inharmonic overtone series, and in a piano sample, you can get rid of some of that with a lowpass filter, which reduces the amplitude of the higher overtones.

My favorite sample is the eastwest Boesendorfer, which I think is stunning. I\'ve modified it with lowpass filtering that opens up (lets the sample be brighter) with velocity and the mod wheel. I\'ve found it\'s necessary to modifiy most .gigs to get the sound I want, with mods this one is very versatile, clear, warm, and nuanced.

Piano tone is really a personal thing, some people are not crazy about this sample (which amazes me, I wonder if their opinions would change if they heard my modifications, everyone who has played here has been stunned.) Anyway, no sample sounds like this one.

> I want good clear samples in the two octaves on either side of middle C

Seems reasonable doesn\'t it? I think the way our samples have been done this is often the most problematic range. With close stereo mics this area can fall between the two mics (ie aim the left mic at the bass, the right at the treble, and the mids appear off axis to both mics) So easy to get phase problems here with all the overtones, and since everyone knows exactly what a piano is supposed to sound like, so easy to spot. Even if it\'s done perfectly, it might not work in all monitoring environments, which might account for some folks\' preferences.

> Bud Powell 7/3 chord, and hear those great sounds

You probably also hear the sympathetic resonances and interplay, I don\'t (yet) believe this can be faked well with a sampler, hopefully you can find what you want without it.

But maybe you can get where you need with filtering? A lowpass filter makes the sound more muted and distant, like closing the lid or listening from the next room (depending on the filters cutoff frequency).

good luck!

[franz]

Piano for songwriter.

We have sampled the piano which was used by Elton John to write his entire new album.

We used a binaural head in the position of \"Elton\" so you can be \"Elton\" in Virtual Reality. Also the piano was put in the exact same position in the studio (Sony).

This is THE piano for writing. 4 layers and sustained samples 1.6 GB. Very warm and very inspiring 160 voices strongly recommended!

Sampled with 96/24 Radar using NEVE preamps.
www.vrsound.com (\"http://www.vrsound.com\")

[Sam]

Franz, everything you post sounds like \"whatever you happen to be looking for, some vrsound sample is the ultimate\" though you never constructively add to any thread.

Yamaha has to be the most metallic sounding piano ever made, and I would never mistake your demo for anything but a sampled piano.

[Z6]

I\'m looking for the piano you described also, and I was most impressed with the Malmsjo (MP3s).

You probably already know this, but just in case: Malmsjo has now got an \'added\' velocity layer and there is a \'rock model\' as well. I\'m not sure if there are any MP3s showing the new \'louder\' versions. There are so many choices, it\'s going to take me forever to decide. The good thing is that they are all pretty cheap. But I haven\'t heard anything negative at all about the Malmsjo (apart from the original lacking in \'loud\' dynamics - but then I suspect that\'s the character of the piano). I\'m almost certain I\'ll go for it (but not yet).

(Or you could go for Franz\'s piano - it\'s intimate and warm and loud and brassy, it\'s recorded closely and from far away; it makes the coffee and you get to have with Elton John after every session (just kidding Franz ;-)

[LHong]

unmetallic piano? hardly found one yet! Since everything are mastering digitally even mixers, effect/dynamic/mastering-tools as well as in digital domain. Not only piano-samples, try to listen on other samples like guitars, basses, brasses, strings, which are same metallic personality (crystal-clear sounding)

Conclusion:
1> analog recording, sampling and mixing.
2> using digital in lower sample-rate like 32khz or lower.
3> using good acoustic-simulated-processing or good analog-verbs.

[Jake Johnson]

Thanks for all the replies and information. I\'m not sure I understand Mr. Hong\'s response, however.

I want a crystal clear recording. My impression has been that the piano samples I\'ve heard were highly accurate reproductions of the sound, but of the wrong sound--of the air vibrating very close to metal strings instead of the more distant air (where the overtones \"mingle\") and vibrating wood that create much of the timbre.

I don\'t notice the metallic sound Mr. Hong refers to on all samples. Not for example, string samples like the Dan Dean solo strings cello. On the other hand, I\'m aware of the argument that analogue sounds warmer. But for a sample to be a sample available on a computer, as I understand these things, the analogue sound would have to be converted to digital, so we would get a sample of a sample. Not good, I would think. On the other hand, this might give us a sound closer to what we want, if I may say \"we.\"

I am clearly out of my depths here. Can those of you with a good understanding of contemporary recording techniques weigh in about the results of using analogue samples, or lower sampling rates to achieve a less brittle sound? Has anyone tried sampling good, all analogue based recordings to get a less brittle sound?

And please help keep my goal in mind here in this discussion: to find a sampled a piano without too evident brassy reverbations after each note. Please let me know if such a piano sound already exists. Thanks, Sam, for the discussion of the Bos, and thanks, Z6, for the discussion of the Malmsjo. These seem to be the best candidates so far.

Thanks again for all the responses.

[DanS]

I am currently working in Sweden, and have the opportunity to play a Malmsjö in a local church after hours. It is only an upright, but it has a full bodied, beautiful mellow tone. The 16th century churches reverb doesn\'t hurt either. It convinced me to go with ArtVista\'s Malmsjö Acoustic Grand. What a sample. I prefer it a great deal over the original Gigapiano, and the Bosendorfer. I haven\'t heard the Steinway samples though.

I didn\'t base my purchase decision on the mp3\'s either, I was just lucky enough to try out the real thing. For $90US, you can\'t go wrong, and Hans Adamson at ArtVista is a great guy to deal with.
Good luck

[franz]

To Sam.

I have sampled a lot of instruments this year and I have a lot of very good stuff to offer for GS. I don\'t know what could be more constructive.

\"whatever you happen to be looking for, some vrsound sample is the ultimate\" I never said it, but it is true. Thanks for the quote!

I would also like to add that the sound in a piano is generated by soft hammers striking metal objects which are suspended within a metal frame. Maybe that\'s why it sounds \"metallic\".
Yamaha pianos are used by many of the best pianists of our time!

[This message has been edited by franz (edited 11-09-2001).]

[DanS]

Hi Cave, at the moment I\'m only using an old Roland D-70, but the Malmsjo sounds great with it. I have my eyes on a Yamaha S80, so I hope to really make the Malmsjo and all my other instruments come alive with it. I don\'t compose orchestral music, so I can\'t help you there.

[caveman]

Dan S and others

It is very important to have good velocity curves etc. as you know

Dan and others, What Midi Controllers asre you using to simulate the velocities etc.

I know that the Kawai Mp9000 is a Digital Piano, but find it lacks Midi Controller Capabilites. What Midi Controller do you guys use for Piano as well as simulating Orchestral. I wish to buy a Controller, but am very fussy if it first will feel good on hammer action, but most importantly What Midi Controller works the best with Malsmjo or other Giga samples ?

Caveman

[john g]

As I\'ve said over the years, the best overall piano remains the Steinway B. But it HAS to be tweeked. The \"metallic\" sound seems to be a characteristic of all the samples out there, except the Malmso. But the M., even with tweeking of its velocity ranges, and attenuation, doesn\'t have the dynamic range of a typical piano. I find the tone of the BOS rather \"strange,\" perhaps \"boxy\" is the word. A matter of personal taste, perhaps. The BOS and the Steinway B are both Oliver Truan products. I use many different filtering combinations and piano combinations at my site at mp3.com. So if you want some idea of the sound of the Steinway, when tweeked, and layered with the MAG, you could do worse than to check out http://www.mp3.com/artists/42/john_lewis_grant.html. (\"http://www.mp3.com/artists/42/john_lewis_grant.html\") It\'s all Bach, which isn\'t a bad test for any sampled piano. Each prelude and fugue is very different; so very different demands are put on the instrument.
One last point, you\'ve got to add reverb to all of these samples, as I have, for the very reason you\'ve suggested. The pianos sound dead without it. I use SB live, believe it or not, but here too, you can\'t use any of their settings. You have to make your own.


[This message has been edited by john g (edited 11-10-2001).]

[Michiel Post]

Hi, the link above is redirected to: http://genres.mp3.com/music/ (\"http://genres.mp3.com/music/\")
Do you have another link that works?
Michiel

[DanS]

The whole point of doing the Malmsjo sample was that it doesn\'t sound as bright and crisp as a Steinway or a Yammie. The piano itself is a mellow sounding instrument, as an alternative to the Steinway B & Bosendorfer. So to say Steinway B is the best sounding, is simply a matter of taste, and nothing more. That said, I am going to buy the Steinway as well to have a variety of tones at my disposal for composing.

[Lance_M]

Michiel, just take out the period.
http://www.mp3.com/artists/42/john_lewis_grant.html (\"http://www.mp3.com/artists/42/john_lewis_grant.html\")

[Jake Johnson]

I\'m getting more and more worried. My first post here was about how, as a song writer, I wanted a good piano sound that wasn\'t metallic.

Other issues seem to arise in the responses. One is brand name. It is not the make of pianos that worries me. Many pianos, including Yamahas, are wonderful, but the samples of them do not remotely resemble their sound. I prefer the sound of real Bosendorfers and Steinways (the latter the instrument of Horowitz and Aske), but I would be very pleased if the samples I\'ve heard sounded vaguely as good as a cruise ship\'s Young-Chang during a Shriner\'s convention.

The piano samples I\'ve heard of Yamahas (the Gigapiano, for example) sound nothing like a Yamaha piano as it sounds if you sit at the keyboard and play it. The samples are recorded near the strings. (I am aware that this method of recording is now popular in classical music. I do not wish to vent the view that current recordings of classical piano are terrible, and the combination of close mic recording, Yamaha pianos, and recording engineers who do not play piano and have never listened to H., A., Sorkin, Gould, or other pianists, may be one of the reasons why. Please help me stay on topic here...And worse still, while I\'m thinking of things not to think about, pop music seems to be following in the same direction. At Border\'s, I recently listened to the first cut of Mary Chapin Carpenter\'s new album, which features a piano that sounds a lot like the Gigapiano to me, and it\'s not just terrible. It makes Carpenter, or her engineer, adjust the timbre of the entire take. Not a great song to start with, but the piano condemns it: this is going to be a mediocre song, the piano announces. What could Carpenter do but follow the piano\'s lead?)

I shouldn\'t let myself get angry. I don\'t own the EastWest Steinway or Bos. I\'ve just listened to too many busy mpgs that seem designed to hide the tinny decay of notes around middle C.

Sam, can you post mpgs of simple, sustained chords that let us hear the sound of the Bos after your tweaks? Thanks, if you can. You seem to be the person who is most serious about getting a realistic timbre.

Thanks to those of you who want to hear a piano.

[Sam]

> I\'ve just listened to too many busy mpgs
> that seem designed to hide the tinny decay of

Totally agree, where\'s the slow and magnificent beauty of a concert grand here? IMO the piano is hard to record well, maybe harder to record well for sampling, and then tricky and tedious to program as a faithful sampled instrument. All the sample suppliers tout their pristine signal chains but that\'s a comparitively small part of the equation and hardly matters if I have issues with the sound of the piano, mic placement, limited velocity variations, sample editing, sample processing, patch programming etc. And though GS pianos are some of the best (that\'s why I\'m here...) most of the commercial offerings exhibit one or more of the above problems. Yikes!

> I don\'t own the EastWest Steinway or Bos

At least with the Steinway you have John G\'s _great_ demos to show what it\'s capable of. It\'s a bit crazy that no mfr shows off their goods half as well as this fellow with no stake in the product. Presumably many of them invested huge efforts in creating the product, did they not ever play something magnificent on it? And one of the advantages of the sampler is that it\'s so easy to record. Geez, hire a session player, and if you can\'t record one great sounding thing in 3 minutes, get back to work, it aint ready for prime time. And in John\'s case, the fine instrument he plays isn\'t even one you can buy. The Boesy doesn\'t even have a good demo (at least it didn\'t in the past) but I ascertained that it had (for my taste anyway) a workable sample set.

[rant off]
I upgraded to GSt a few months ago so... I\'ll see if I can put up a bos articulation file and spread the love.

> can you post mpgs of simple, sustained chords

No promises, let me see tho. I\'m over my head in commitments and might not have a good public place to put it. I\'ll put it on the stack anyway and maybe I can find the time.

> You seem to be the person who is most serious about getting a realistic timbre

8^) Probably not true, but I know what I like and do what I can. Thanks!

[DanS]

Hey Jake, you sound like you\'re bordering on elitism. If you\'re that fussy about your piano sound, there probably isn\'t a sample on the planet that will make you happy.
You have a few options though, lower your stellar standards, and accept what\'s out there, sample a piano yourself, or do what I did, go out and buy a baby grand and record it in real time.

[bunapi]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanS:
Hey Jake, you sound like you\'re bordering on elitism. If you\'re that fussy about your piano sound, there probably isn\'t a sample on the planet that will make you happy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jake is expressing an opinion shared by many others, hardly making it elitist. The current GS pianos, while certainly usable, are not exactly inspiring. It\'s been suggested before in this forum that it has to do with the recording technique, and I wholeheartedly agree. How hard can it be to hire a recording engineer who records pianos day in and day out - e.g. on jazz albums (can you beat that ECM piano sound?) - and have him set up and record someone playing individual notes at the keyboard? Sure, have someone else program the instrument, but please leave the mic\'ing and recording of it to someone who has an idea of what a piano should sound like on record.

bunapi

[Jake Johnson]

After some thought, I want to apologize for the tone of my remarks about contemporary piano samples. I understand that enormous amounts of work, time, and skill have gone into the current samples, and I appreciate the people who have devoted themselves to the cause of creating a good piano sound. Incredible strides have been made in the past few years.

Please understand my frustration at having instruments that are close to perfect, after all these efforts, but still not achieving the sound I need.

I do like Bunapi\'s suggestion that engineers devoted to creating jazz piano albums be hired. (And regret that I don\'t have the skill or knowledge to create a good piano sample myself. Or a good piano...)

[DanS]

You can pay $200 for a Steinway sample, or $50,000 for a real one.
If you guys could afford the real thing, well I guess we wouldn\'t still be lengthening this thread
How is a piano that\'s recorded by someone playing the same note at different velocites supposed to sound like a real performer, playing a real composition, playing a real piano in real time?
Pick your favorite jazz or classical pianist, and have him/her perform the sampling session. Do honestly think the samples will sound any better? Do you think the engineers recording these samples have never recorded a piano before? I don\'t think you guys are giving these people enough credit for the work that goes into recording a piano sample library.
If you want better than what\'s out there at the present time, I think you\'ll have to drop the coin and buy the real thing. Why are you guys even using samples anyway?

[Michiel Post]

I would like to contribute a little to the conversation here. I have just recorded my 4th set of piano samples and hope I can shed a little light in this debate. The main problem we encounter when making \"good\" or realistic piano samples is mic placement. Several topics on this list pointed to this problem. Most real pianist love the sound of a grand piano from a certain distance as the tone of a piano needs space to develop. Its low notes need at least 3 to 5 meters to make the wave that is a low frequency of 10 hz. The 10 hz frequency is not the ground tone (fundamental) but it\'s a result of the complex overtones. Sum and difference frequencies occur that have a huge influence on the perception of tone and sound. Recording technique never reached the point where we could capture what the human ear can hear. We can place a super high quality mic near a source and some notes sound pretty realistic there. When other notes are played in the same setting the recording can sound dead. The main cause for this is the different frequency radiation pattern of each individual note. In a grand piano you must imagine that each string (combination of strings) has a different angle for each frequency band. The C4 note can radiate mainly upwards in the fundamental area but can radiate towards the left in the 2nd and 3th overtone area. A microphone positioned to the right will lack the presence of this note. The C#4 may well radiate straight in the direction of the microphone at the same frequency band. This results in un-evenness of sound. Placing a microphone close to the strings results in un-even frequency response for individual notes often sounding as metallic or unnatural. The total blend of the \'normal\' or acoustic perceived piano sound is much richer than the recorded piano sound. Todays microphones still can not fully capture the full harmonic content of a piano tone.
When you listen to piano in a concert setting the hearing distance is much larger and the overall reflections of the concert hall have added up and summed the individual frequence radiations to a certain mixed sound picture. This is mainly a positive picture. Listening to famous concert halls learns that each hall has its own characteristics in frequency response and total impression. When you place a microphone in a typical concert hall position (12 meters or more from the source) the signal to noise ratio will become un-usable for sampling. A recent discussion in that direction was started when Maarten Spruyt and others presented The Manifesto in this NS forum. Very good reading for those interested in the topic of sampling.

So the other big problem apart from the frequency radiation problem is distance itself. A microphone positioned at 3 meters from a grand piano will never produce a sample that is very usable because of noise. First of all the room has a noise of its own. Every studio (no matter how quiet) has noise. Bruce Richardson pointed out in one of his recent contributions that a really amazing piano sample must be recorded in a extremely quiet recording room with a microphone positioned several meters away from the strings. The microphone has a certain amount of noise, no matter what level it\'s very audible when recording a p or pp melody, certainly at such a distance. In order to overcome these problems we need ultra quiet microphones and ultra quiet recording rooms.

I have just finished a recording session following the guidelines of what I pointed out here. I cannot reveal any details yet but I\'ve made a an MP3 of a simple chord to demonstrate the sound we\'ve achieved.
The mp3 is a capture straight from GST. http://www.postaudiomedia.com/demo/newpoststeinway.mp3 (\"http://www.postaudiomedia.com/demo/newpoststeinway.mp3\")

I have or have listened to all sampled piano sets available today and in my opinion they are all very very good work. They don\'t all sound as realistic, and some sample sets have been recorded quite close to the strings, but in general they are all outstanding in terms of sampling technology.
Michiel Post

[DanS]

Thanks for all the information Michiel.
Interesting comments.

[tomhartman]

Some thoughts.

Coming from a predominantly pop perspective, and having recorded in studios for over 30 years, I\'d like to offer my take on this.

First, my predominant need in sample piano playback is a pop piano. I think there are a fair amount of choices out there for classical work...John posted his Bach link and it sounds great.

But for pop, it\'s rough. I grew up with The Beatles, and loved the sound of their Steinway at Abbey Road. I recorded at Abbey Road, and am familiar with how the piano on their stuff sounded in \"real life.\" On record it\'s compressed and EQ\'d a lot, but even in person, it had a real ring and impact to it. The closest I\'ve heard in a sample to a \"pop\" Steinway is Dean Coakley\'s piano, and I\"m sure I\'m spelling his name wrong....now the piano sample, which was made for \"normal\" samplers like the AKAI, in solo, is pretty bad from today\'s standards....when you hit a chord and let it ring out for a bit, there are all sorts of strange things with the loops going on. But in reality, in pop, it isn\'t often that a solo piano is heard ringing out for awhile, so it isn\'t a problem.

The problem with all the pianos I\'ve tried for pop is:

1 They are miked too distantly.

2 When advertised as a good \"pop\" piano, they are metallic and exceedingly bright. No offense to the \"Elton \" piano mentioned in this thread, but it\'s a great example of what I woudn\'t want. The last time Elton had a memorable piano sound was on \"Your Song\" IMHO.

At EMI, and in most studios recording a pop piano, the mikes are inside the lid, close up. The last thing you want is a room sound to deal with in the track. This of course, makes the piano sample unusable for classical, which is a different animal all together. I heard the Steinway B sample, and it sounded nice, but it struck me immediately as being miked too distantly....had way to much ambience to it for pop (in addition, I could not get the sample to work on my Giga 160 without pops and clicks whenever the pedal was down...).

So I wish I could find something more up to date than the Coakley piano, but I haven\'t found anything that sounds as good for pop. Any ideas appreciated.

[john g]

Also important is whether you plan to use the sample in live performance (not too many folks doing that), or whether you\'re recording straight \"into the computer.\" Either way you want great sound, but the two roads are completely different. Just as playing the controller/keyboard versus executing a midi file also produce quite different results. So each requires a different sample, or a different adjustment to the sample you\'re working with.

For my work I\'m listening for one thing only: can I make the sample sound IDENTICAL to or BETTER than the best recordings of solo Bach piano out there on the market.

To do that I keep a bunch of BACH solo piano CDs in my CD player and I A/B my stuff with the real recorded piano to get my sound exactly right.

Can you get it \"exactly right\" using GS? Can you produce a piano sound which, once it is recorded and reverbed, is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the real thing?

Sure you can. In fact, you can better the sound quality of almost all but the best recorded pianos. No problem. The \"weakest link\" is not the sample, at this point, it\'s the reverb and room ambience. What\'s needed is a dedicated reverb card that\'s compatible with GS. Something better, much better, than the Timeworks or Waves Ren reverb plugs, or the SBLive onboard verb.

Postscript. Mp3 files really knock the stuffing out of any recorded sound. So it\'s real hard to tell what you\'re buying on the basis of Mp3s.

Also, let\'s remember that we\'re just at the beginning when it comes to piano samples. Once memory and storage costs come down, which they will, it will become feasible to put more velocity layers into the sample. That\'s what all the samples lack right now, even the five-layer samples.

You\'ll never get the sound of a real piano, played live, cause in the end you\'ve got loudspeakers pushing the sound of your sample. But you CAN match a live piano recording, with a little work that is.

[Jake Johnson]

Thanks for helping us understand the complexities, Michael. (I am now still more aware of how little I know about recording.)

The MPG you posted is excellent. Very clear notes. An excellent demo of what sounds like an excellent piano sample. You say you can\'t reveal details. Can you, however, tell us if this will be a commercial product you plan to release any time in the near future? Please keep us up to date.

(For the purpose of objective comparison, would other people who use the existing piano samples be willing to post the same simple notes played on their systems? Sam? I\'m sure the Bos and Steinway have very different sounds from this, while still being good. Love to hear them.)

[john g]

Yah, the Post sample does sound very good. I hope all the notes are that perfect. Wouldn\'t it be great to find a sample that didn\'t have to be tweeked ad infinitum to sound good? If Mike can create a winner, I\'ll pay for it.

J.G.

[Michiel Post]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jake Johnson:

The MPG you posted is excellent. Very clear notes. An excellent demo of what sounds like an excellent piano sample. You say you can\'t reveal details. Can you, however, tell us if this will be a commercial product you plan to release any time in the near future? Please keep us up to date.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The details remain secret for some time but this sample is made for a commercial project that will be released in the next couple of months. All the notes sound as the ones in the mp3 example. I was very surprised when all the files were loaded in the gigasampler editor it sounded almost perfect without any tweaking or further editing.
To tell a little about the sample: I made a 16 velocity layer patch.
We\'ll post the details in this forum when the project is coming to the point where we can do so.

[john g]

And, Michiel, \"commercial\" means that it eventually will be available?

J.G.

[Chadwick]

Great Michiel.

From what I can tell, you\'ve almost completely gotten rid of that \'metallic\' quality of so many of the closer mic\'s pianos.

16 velocity layers...8 down and 8 up?

Is this a Gst instrument?

If you can\'t say, it\'s understandable.

[This message has been edited by Chadwick (edited 11-13-2001).]

[tomhartman]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by john g:
Also important is whether you plan to use the sample in live performance (not too many folks doing that), or whether you\'re recording straight \"into the computer.\"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, I noticed on your Bach mp3s that I felt the soft pieces, like the Prelude in C Major, were very nice and very credible. On the louder things, like the Prelude in C minor, I felt like the piano sound like it didn\'t ring enough. More thud than I expected. I don\'t listen to lots of solo classical piano, so maybe this is a characeristic of a real grand played in this style (remember... I\'m the pop guy!). But there is a ringy, bell-like character to the Steinways and Yamaha\'s I\'ve played...especially in the high registers...that I haven\'t heard yet in samples. I think the Steinway B came closest to what I mean...but for my music that sample was far too ambient, and on the dark side (though that of course could have been fixed with EQ).

I wish I\'d been able to get Steinway B to work on my system, but neither Nemesis, East West, or Soundchaser could help. Pops and clicks whenever the pedal was held down....despite being on a Soundchaser designed PC and Giga 160.

[Michiel Post]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by john g:
And, Michiel, \"commercial\" means that it eventually will be available?

J.G.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this sample will become available as a commercial CD-ROM set (or DVD-R). Again we cannot give a lot of details at this moment. Sorry for that.
Michiel Post

[john g]

Tom, you\'ve got a good ear! Mine\'s a bit ruined after accommodating to the sample over the years.

The D minor prelude IS, as you say, lacking in high frequency details. It did it quite a while back, and if memory serves me, I compressed it and adjusted the Steinway B sample to filter out the high end. It\'s very hard to do this piece through midi, and even harder to adjust the timbre of the sample through filtering.

That\'s one of the problems with the Steinway sample, it\'s real hard to kill the metallic ring around mid c (a kind of nasal sound) without killing the distinctive ring of the Steinway, when played moderately loud.

The C Major prelude that\'s there at this moment is different from the one that was there yesterday, October 13. The current version is over-filtered and needs to be fixed. Fugue 24, on the other hand, is also over-filtered, but seems to sound OK, at least on the Grado phones I\'m using.

Of course, there\'s another issue: the monitor. Grado\'s, although very accurate, tend to bring out the high-end.

Final issue: the cheesy SB live reverb itself filters out some of the high end, but since I\'m running it real time, I can adjust to some extent.

Pops...

My computer is ancient by today\'s standards: Pentium 2, 350 M, Maxtor ultra ATA drive and 256 fast mem running the original Gigasampler... no problems whatsoever running the Steinway B sample. Sam\'s the expert (well, better than I am) on system requirements. Individual hard drives seem to have quirky interactions with GS. I still get the occasional pop or click if my system\'s not freshly booted. And some of the mp3s I\'ve posted at my site show it. Haven\'t had time to fix that.

[fmfgs]

since nobody seems to supply a boesendorfer example.. http://www.ccshop.ch/fmf/boesbach.mp3 (\"http://www.ccshop.ch/fmf/boesbach.mp3\")
untreated, out of the box, direct out of gigasampler with nfx...
Nothing can destroy Bach\'s beautiful music!!
fmfgs

[Sam]

OK I think I found some web space. No time for a demo yet from me, but I did put my favorite articulation up for the Boesendorfer, try this if you have the eastwest sample and know how to use articulation files:
http://sams.best.vwh.net/piano/ (\"http://sams.best.vwh.net/piano/\")

That will get you close to my sound.

I liked that Bach demo, shows the clearness of the sample, I bet it sounds better (more subtle variation, darker voice) with this articulation.

[This message has been edited by Sam (edited 11-15-2001).]

[john g]

Sam, I get an file called Bosendofer.art, which I can\'t access. Problem may be at my end.

John Grant

[john g]

I\'m still using the old GS. (May I deviate a little from the subject at hand and ask whether someone who\'s basically using GS as a piano really needs Studio? Any real advantages for a low-techie like me?)

J.G>

[Sam]

JG, I need more details, the articulation file should allow you to get my favorite patch for the Boesendorfer in GigaStudio, I thought you didn\'t have GSt. I haven\'t tried to import the articulation file myself, since my gig already has it, I suspect it should work but it is untested.

[Jake Johnson]

So I need to distinquish between two different problems. One is the harpischordish sound of some samples and the other is the strange hollow sound of the notes near middle C.

Regardless, I did hope that other people would record the brief passage that Michiel Post gave us above. Please understand that my intention in asking for those recordings was not to create a conflict over who has the best recording of the middle octave, but to let us all hear the same simple notes played on all the samples and open a discussion.

And has anyone heard\\read more about the piano sample the Post recording came from? I see Post has the new Forte Piano out, which sounds excellent, but of course, is not the kind of piano we are discussing here.

I see that an update to the Malmjo piano has been released. Anyone tried it?

[J.P. Schwinghamer]

Just my two sense,
I record british esque pop folk music with the piano being a primary force in most of my compositions. I\'ve just recently invested in the GigaStudio platform because I see it as having a great deal of promise...Seeing as I am a college student, I can\'t afford to spend a couple grand on an old steinway upright or comparable substitute...I LOVE MY PIANO SOUND DIRTY...I was so relieved when I heard someone mention the Abbey Road Steinway...that...in my honest opinion...is what I consider to be a truely wonderful sounding instrument..the reason...its organic...it has flaws...it has idiosyncracies that make it stand out...what i don\'t understand...and maybe you sample developers can handle this...why does everyone want their piano\'s sooooo clean??? meaning...its one thing if you are recording classical music...but thing of other genres....take jazz or pop....all of the great albums...their piano\'s are dirty...the sound warm and UNperfect...that...to me is what is so memorable about them...think back to the good ole days of the mellotron...those sounds have stuck around because the have that warm dirty sound...partially because its analog tape...but the point is....clean music isn\'t pleasing or beneficial to music...granted this is just my opinion....but most of the contemporary artists sound like ****....BECAUSE....their sound is too over the top...its too polished and clean...give us some noise....give us a rattle...these aspects paint the tonal landscape...they give us a sense of place within the music...clean music...clean samples for that matter...make us seem like we\'re in a sterile lab somewhere...there\'s no depth...no emotion to it...I am currently looking for the right piano for my recently acquired GigaStudio..and to be honest...the one that I am truely convinced of..as being the most...organic..truely playable sample is...the Malmsjo...it sounds warm and beautiful...maybe its just me...but i wish samples were less pristine...could some developer PLEASE provide those interested in producing quality ORGANIC music with a product that meets the needs...this applies to other instruments as well....namely...DRUMS....why can\'t a developer produce drums that sound like they just came off a Ramsey Lewis Trio session??? analog tape people....digital is too clean....give us the tape compression and warmth that only TAPE can give us...sure you\'re going to lose some in the A/D conversion...but still....conclusion...the warmth and idiosyncracies that are inherent in imperfect tape(or equivalent)recordings...gives the listen those subtle details needed to be transformed by the music...to be transplated...to be taken to the smokey club where jazz musicians thrive...to be taken to the hall where the concert pianists thrive...these little noises and attributes give the sound its three dimensionality...

Sorry for less the precise continuity...hopefully someone can relate to what im trying to get across!

Developers...keep up the good work...we\'re gonna make it!!! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif
By the way....Hans Adamson...you\'ll be hearing from me soon...LOVE THAT SOUND!!!

take care all...have a great thanksgiving

JPS

[DanS]

I agree with Schwing.

I have the Malmsjö as well.
Love the sound and character it brings to my tunes!

DanS

[stories777]

Hi Jake:

(40 replies so far - hot topic indeed!)

I share your frustration with trying to obtain a natural, complex, warm, and woody sound in a sampled piano.

I\'m no techie, I\'m not a prof. sampler guy either, and I\'m only an amateur composer, but it all boils down to the music, to moving the soul etc. Let me share my experiences - please bear with me. (My father was a music teacher and baroque organist, so, I grew up swamped with good music and complex resonances all around me - a 1912 Heintzman grand in our living room, a junked solid oak 1919 Casavant 3-manual pipe organ in the basement that my Dad converted to warm subtractive tube \"synthesis\" in 1966 etc. etc.)...So, there\'s at least some merit in what I hear and say about what I hear. I\'m not coming from the I.T. side of all of this that\'s for sure. Just the musical side. Pls. bear with me.

I agree with a lot of the input in the forum above, on good mic\'ing of pianos. I think though, what your ear also craves - and this is a sign of a good musical ear that you have - is the all cardinally important SYMPATHETIC RESONANCE. Gobs of it! Mountains of it! Planets full of it!! -That\'s what\'s missing. I recently bought a 57\" high monster 1925 manhogany upright grand (excellent shape) - for the trade-in value on some synth modules, just over a grand; I was SO sick of the lack of sympathetics in samples. (Sympathetics produce the singing lines you are so used to on acoustic guitar, where even simple, linear, monophonic melody lines will stir your soul and really say something - there\'s so much complex information in EACH note). I also found out what I was missing when I cracked open Larry Fine\'s Piano Book where he says that, a SINGLE NOTE on a real piano, when struck, immediately gives off 8 (EIGHT!!) partials (sympathetics), then generates dozens (24+) of subliminally audible partials, and the numbers of these are theoretically INFINITE. Giga Q-Up Arts Holy Grail piano (I bought this disc) has a 4-notes to the note sympathetic model (40 poly in GS160). This would be 3 partials and a fundamental max. or, 2 partials, and a stereo fundamental. It sounds nice, but it too gets boring quickly beside the real thing. Not surprising! - 8 through 24 minimum, partials on the real thing, and only 2 or 3 on the Grail! Jake, believe me, your ear doesn\'t lie when it \"notices\" this and wants more out of a sample. Some of the \"woody\" sound you crave, too, is the massive omni-directional soundfield you sit in at a real piano. Over 2,500 square inches of sitka spruce spewing complex resonances of its own all over the room, not to mention the aformentioned harp sympathetics.

(Hey - no one ever mentions this one: the wood & strings are full of original \"Big Bang\" elements - carbon, nickel, iron, copper, billions of years old, with complex quantum and sub-quantum resonances - we might just be subliminally sensitive to these too!! They even change with the air pressure & humidity - they are in a sense \"alive\" -Try re-creating THAT with binary code - the latter -virtual- makes something that has never, and will never exist!! - If you really think about it). Hey - I\'m no Luddite - but, geez this digital stuff (marvelous, indeed it is!) has a long way to go!!

Here\'s another wrinkle: In a recent Sonikmatter interview, pianist Lyle Mays (he said he \"Hates Synths\") mentioned that the moment you hit 2 or more notes AT THE SAME TIME on a real piano, then a whole new set of things happen that are different from the original 24+ sympathetics of each note by itself - i.e. you get a new \"sub-product\" set of sympathetics. (AND YES, YOU CAN HEAR IT - AND YES IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE TO INCLUDE THEM). And, who knows what the spruce and mahogany in turn do to that. So what happens when you hit a nice 5 or 7 note lush jazz voicing on a real piano? The 7 notes, at min. 24 partials per note, is a sonic feast of 168 elements, and, possibly over 500 things going on with the sub-product partials from the chord inter-string interactions.

Jake, recently, I got a little ways into something my ear could live with (for a short while that is). This was a layer of GeneralMusic piano module (it has the Univ. of Padua sympathetic resonance model), an Oberheim piano module, with the Grail above, or, the woody Trachtman Steinway Giga. I sold the modules -among others- to help pay for the 1925 upright.

What I plan to do next year, is (maybe) get an optical midi strip for my \"new\" 1925 upright (cost is dear), and perhaps layer in real time, or post-process layer, these big gigas I have, with the real upright (this particular one has a string length of a 6\'2\" grand! - So, I actually hardly even need to layer in Gigas like this - the big upright is usually enough). I keep the front wood panels off (reduces that boxy sound), reverb it, and it\'s sonically a grand on the cheap, and with far better wood than you can get these days. As for mics - I\'m on a starving artist budget - so I\'m building my own mics out of old car-door speakers (like a Beatles kick-drum mic made from a speaker). I\'ll try and use some of the mic\'ing wisdom from this board. Good mics are for later next year\'s budget.

Jake, I\'d wait a bit, and look now and again at what is coming out of the Padua (Italy) research. There\'s a new piano/controller out of GenMusic (Pro-Mega 3) that has lots of post-processing sympathetic modelling options. Right now, sample bases and sympathetic algorithm sets look way TOO SMALL from ALL manufacturers. I\'d give it 5 years. If you can, get an old upright to tide you over.

What we\'re looking for - ultimately - is algoritms so complex that they can give you the main sympathetics (at least 24x88=2112 \"notes\" for 88 notes) and, intelligent sub-product partials (100\'s of new elements per chord!) huge (5 Gigabyte or more) sample bases and probably 32-bit/96K depth & rate. Probably, the P-5 or even P-6 generation PC\'s (with 5,000 clocks) to run it all on as well. It\'ll take them a while for sure - especially with the \"give \'em 256, 20k-size piezo doorbell sounds\" mentality in the keyboard marketplace, and, especially with the extreme lack of coverage/understanding of sympathetic resonance out there - and even in here at this board. Music without sympathetics just isn\'t real. It\'s an illusion. (Immagine playing a chord on your guitar, and the E-string is in one building, the A-string in another isolated building up the street - or another city - and so on. They\'re all connected to your ear by a sort of conference telephone, so yeah, you can \"hear\" that 3-note \"chord\", but the notes never interact, there are no A-note resonances in the E-note played alone, and, absolutely NO, A+E sub-product resonances when played together. Immagine the same scenario with a real choir! Absurd! No possibility of developing true ensemble in the sound. This is the \"trap\" we\'re in right now with digital music. Ask some of these \'I.T.-ites\' who develop and use this stuff for more ensemble in their sounds, and they just might not know what you are talking about - and we buy music products from them? Whether it\'s an A-string and an E-string getting together in ensemble to create a sort of new net, \"Z\" string heap of sounds, or, a horn-player in an orchestra band (I was one) listening carefully to those players all around him and making minute adjustments to improve ensemble, sympathetics and ensemble are at the heart and soul of music. So, let\'s all (musicians like you and I Jake, on one side, and technical folks on the other) work together, cross-educate one another, and get to better sound indeed! A worthy goal.

\'Hope this helps Jake. -Happy MUSIC! -that\'s what it\'s all about! -Stories.

[stories777]

Extra Note:

Jake: (Forgot this bit on previous post).

Some of the big omni-directional woody sound that you crave in a piano sample can be partly re-created by using large (6\' or 7\' high) dipolar or bipolar speakers (either electrostatic - too expensive - or, lines of mid-highs above 200Hz - like the aluminum Jordans. -Or even a pile of surplus 5\" car-door speakers mounted in a line on an open-backed panel). If you want, run these speaker panels the wrong way around - parallel to the floor!! (I spoke to a musician/developer out at FilterQueen in Victoria a while back, and he said that he had tried this to get a more \"grand-piano-like\" distribution of sound from samples. He used very costly full room height electrostatics lying flat, about 3\' off the ground to simulate the 2-way up/down throw, of a grand piano soundboard). Psycho-acoustically, it worked!

There are lots of experiments you can cook up that, while \"low-fi\" to the I.T. purist, do actually work to make sound more realistic and room-filling. A studio in Yorkshire U.K. -located in an old manor house- used a vacant basement wine cellar (huge complex cavern) as a reverb! They put speakers at one end, and mics at the other end, and ran it as a loop off the desk upstairs. No D/A converters!

About a dozen years back, when I was sonically starved using FM-Synth pianos, I cooked up something I called an electro-acoustical-resonating-labyrinth, as an effects loop. Basically, a huge sealed box, small full-range speakers at one end, mics at the other, and a maze of spruce panels in between - albeit with a straight path for the highs - it was designed to add \"woodiness\" to the cold, clinical FM sound.

To this day, many famous U.K. drummers will often set up their kit in the stairwell of a country manor house studio, to get an added dimension to their sound before it all gets washed down in the mix upstairs.

I think this fun & experimental side to music can add a certain realism and sense of both joy and cathartic release when dealing with the seeming rigid aspects and other limitations of the otherwise marvelous Giga stuff. Just play, make music, do crazy sonic experiments, don\'t be afraid to add real elements and be \"low-fi\" - it can really enhance your music. You might not make it into the Guiness Book for best signal-to-noise ratio, but you\'ll have joy and music with loads of unique character (your unique stairwell, your unique crude resonator boxes, your choice of running a mastering mix through an old basment for reverb, etc.) Sometimes this invites the Muse better than anything! Digital hassles and digital perfectionism chased the Muse out of my Universe, that\'s for sure.

-Cheers! -Stories.

[Jake Johnson]

In my constant search for things to say that reveal my ignorance about sampling, I had a thought yesterday that might be worth pursuing as a way to demonstrate just how far I\'ve drifted from rational thought:

If overtones are what we miss, and they are unavailable because of memory limitations, would it be possible to gain the needed memory by being extremely narrow in a sample: by creating individual sample sets for each key? Say we took G major? All the notes on the keyboard could be sampled, but the only the notes in the G major scale (and the flatted 3rd and 5th?) would trigger overtones. Would there then be enough memory left to trigger a completely different sample set when two or three or whatever notes are struck at the same time, so we could sample chords instead of individual notes?

I know the idea of creating individual samples for each key sounds very limiting, but that limit would seem to be one we would notice most if playing live or playing around at night, and not wanting to switch samples between every song. Since giga instruments are instead usually used for studio work, however, might it be worthwhile to take the 30 seconds to switch samples between songs if the result was a good piano with overtones?

The larger limitation would of course be over the passing tones or enharmonic tones of much contemporary music that would not trigger overtones. Single scale sampling would not be of much use for playing much modern\\contemporary jazz or classical music. On the other hand, might this work for the many other different types of music?

How lost am I? Be gentle.

[Jake Johnson]

Lost, I take this to mean, Dan, but still wanting to pursue this line of, well, thought.

The problem would be how to register that two or three or more notes have been struck more or less at once? Would this require a hardware configuration that was able to register that given notes (the ten or so chords, and their inversions) usually played in a given key are being struck simultaneously instead of individually? Would any kind of midi routing be able to handle this? (Still a lot of note combinations to recognize, but far fewer than if the computer had to recognize the possible combinations of notes in every key).

Or could one write a program that could recognize key combinations? It would be an if-then sequence, and not an incredibly complex one: if these keys but not these other keys are pressed, then play this sample. Would the problem then be how to get midi to recognize this set of samples? (These chord samples might be mapped to a separate midi channel as a separate instrument?)

[DanS]

You\'re not so lost Jake, just find your way to a piano showroom, pick one up, + a couple of really swell mics, and Bob\'s your uncle.

[RobertKooijman]

One way to get to more realism using sample playback based systems is to have sample selection based on previous note transistions (n-halftone up/down, time elapsed), note combinations (e.g. most common chords) and changes in velocity.

It would bring some of the physical modeling behavior to sample playback based systems.

This is not entirely whisfull thinking, I\'ve suggested it to a well known company in Germany for an update to their sampler and got an interesting reply...

I\'ve been brainstorming of different approaches, the main ones:
- non-modeling method using conventional raw native CPU power for real time sample selection based on most recent note transitions. Practically, it will involve some kind of \"advanced\" option in the sample/key/modulation editor pages.
The GUI for this is a bit of a challenge, but as the whole process is linear and relatively straightforward it is feasible.

- modeling method involving complex, possibly Fourier Analysis, for modifying real time standard played back samples.
As long as \'real\' physical modeling doesn\'t
move on (not much seems to have hapened the last few years), we still have to rely on samples.

Some years back I sampled my beloved Accord-Zither. A wonderful double-string instrument with also a few chord sections.

As reported earlier in this forum, there is indeed a very interesting difference in individual sampled notes played back at the same time, an the same individual notes sampled in one go as an ensemble/chord.

No matter how hard I tried, it was impossible to re-create the magic of a Zither chord only using individual samples. I could come reasonably close though by using \"just\" intonation tuning at playback as aposed to equal tempered scale. But that is altogether another complex topic...

I applaud any atttempts to incorporate sympatic resonances and chord/ensemble \"magic\" into sample programming. As long as the samplers don\'t incorporate some more intelligent options, we have to make the best of what\'s available.

In case of Piano\'s, sampling mainly sustained pedal down-notes as done in the Malmsjo, is imo a good appraoch to get more of the wood and resonances that otherwise get lost. For more bite, you could layer it with the note-attack portion of marcato samples.

Omnidirectional miking from a reasonable distance in a relatively dead environment is another one.
I had best results using a very low noise Sennheiser MKH20 RF condenser-omni.
And gues where: out in the countryside when everyone sleeps and the birds have not yet woken up. No worries about room reflections!

Cheers, Robert

[Jake Johnson]

Sounds interesting.

I\'m still curious, though: is there a way in any of the software samplers to trigger separate sets of samples (of chords) when the notes are played together? Could the chord samples be triggered by, say, depressing two pedals while playing the notes simultaneously? This might take some getting used to, but the results would make it worth the effort.

(Again, this would require separate sample sets for each key to save memory, but it would be worth the trouble of switching sample sets, given the addition of overtones.)

[Jake Johnson]

Going back an old thread here to ask questions I fully expect laughter about:

Has anyone else experimented with Stories777\'s idea of putting speakers\\monitors behind a sheet of good spruce as thick as a piano soundboard, or in a spruce box to emulate a piano soundboard?

I would imagine that there would be limitations: in a piano the entire length of the strings would be vibrating, setting the wood vibrating all along its own length, whereas two monitors would be distributing waves in more concentrated areas. One the other hand, it seems like an interesting idea. (For that matter, has anyone tried arranging monitors in a good piano cabinet and testing the resulting sound?)

Be gentle.

[jmccord]

I use Gigastudio with a Roland KR-1077 digital piano. It\'s packaged in a baby grand-style case, and its audio system is close to what you suggest. There is a spruce \"soundboard\" under the top in the same location as it would be on a grand piano (in fact, except for the lack of strings it looks like a grand.) The speakers are mounted to this board - two bass and four midrange drivers projecting downward, and six tweeters projecting upward. The amplifier is 120 watts per channel. Roland claims that the speakers interact with the soundboard to improve the quality of the sound.

It certainly has the best live sound of any digital piano I\'ve heard, particularly with the top up. Much of that is of course due to Giga, and there may also be a \"psycho-acoustic\" component - you expect it to sound like a piano, so it does. But others have commented on its realism when played live.

The big missing piece from my perspective is the sense of \"physicality\" you get when you\'re at the keyboard of an acoustic piano - the vibrations you feel in your fingers (although there is a little feeling of that, the Roland feeds some of the acoustic energy back into the case), the complex resonances, etc. It\'s a good digital piano, but still a digital.
jim

[Jo-Seth]

I don\'t hear people talk about the Holy Grail Piano much. For me this is the best sounding giga piano out there. I also have a chceapish Faziola sample that sits real well in pop tracks.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

two things...

For the singer/songwriter, I\'d suggest checking out the Post Grandioso. It\'s got more distance than most of the other choices (but ironically sounds SO close, because the soundstage was so quiet). As a result of the distance, you get a bit LESS sustain, which is actually the quality you want against a vocal in most cases. There\'s a natural tendency to consider this piano a recital/legit sort of piano because of its microphone placement, but it will go lots of different directions. It\'s a little on the dark side, which would allow the vocal to easily take focus (although you can dial in some EQ and it will brighten up very quickly). You can also add the second set of \"distant\" samples and balance these against the first to add room reflections, a very nice feature that works super well. Have a fast machine!!

And as a general note, there is a world of difference in resonance and sustain, and I think this issue gets confused at times. I would consider the Post Grandioso the most resonant of any of the pianos I\'ve heard so far for Giga...and that\'s partly because it has less sustain. The distance from mic to piano (not far, just not close), coupled with the extreme quiet of the particular recording environment allowed the tone to develop as a whole. For many musical settings this is what you want--a piano that sounds like a big wooden thing surrounded by air.

On the other hand, there are musical styles that call for a more closeup view, and that\'s where you get into the need for sustain over resonance. Going to the other extreme, you have the ArtVista Malmsjo, which is probably one of the most, if not the very most, sustained pianos available for Gigastudio. You don\'t hear a lot of wood, or a lot of percussive attack, just loads of heavenly, ever changing tone--especially up in the top register where this particular instrument was just remarkable, period. This ultra sustained tone is great for sparse, introspective work, klangfarbenmelodie, and other ethereal styles. It\'s not particularly ideal for more rhythmic percussive ventures, nor would it necessarily be the ideal for some vocal backing--since you\'d want the vocal to be the sustaining role in the production more so than the piano.

All the \"top shelf\" pianos tend to fall somewhere between these two in terms of sustain and resonance. What I\'d define as the top shelf pianos are (in no significant order):

Tractman C
Bardstown Bosendorfer
Post Grandioso
ArtVista Malmsjo
EastWest Steinway B

There are other pianos that qualify in a more limited basis in my opinion, including the EastWest Bosie, Michiel Post\'s other, more esoteric pianos, and even the GigaPiano in some settings, but I don\'t find myself reaching for them nearly as often because there are attributes one way or another that just don\'t jibe with my personal needs or tastes. Your mileage may vary. I can almost always depend on one of my \"main five\" to cover a given situation.

The oft-noted Purgatory Creek comparison site is not a bad place to check out this phenomenon, but keep in mind that it makes all the pianos sound pretty much universally crappy, and that almost every piano actually sounds better than it does there. Unless a real player is playing and responding to a particular sample, it\'s not possible to show off instruments in their best light. The value of \"one file applied to all\" is simply to take what comparisons you can, and know that you\'re hearing the instrument at its worst.

Bottom line, you have to pick a piano sample that\'s going to work for your piece, there\'s really no single instrument that covers every situation. Even if you used an acoustic piano in a studio, you\'d mic it differently depending on the project. Unless you are a very focused, one-style performer, there\'s no way around needing several piano samples. If you\'re a working composer/producer who uses lots of piano, you can\'t have enough different ones from which to choose!!

[Jake Johnson]

Bruce:

I wanted to pick up this old thread to ask you about the post-Post Grandioso intruments:

Does the Post Bos sound closer to the listener and still seem as resonant as the Grandioso (without being close-miked)?

How do the VintAudio upright pianos compare for a vocal? As resonant? (I\'ve posted here about these pianos, which I love because they sound so close. They\'re the only ones I have of all the intruments I mention here. Maybe I\'m getting worried that so few people have commented on these pianos.)

How about the Bardstown Bos? I love the sound of the demos.

(Writing this really makes me wish I had a thousand dollars to spend on piano samples right now. I\'m caught in that stage of not knowing which piano to buy next, confused because they all sound good.)

[Worra]

You might also want to check out our two new pianos, the Studio 88 Grand and the Rain Piano. Besides having a unique sound, the pianos have a great \"playing-feel\" since they are based so many samples per note. The Studio Grand was recorded 12-13 different velocities per note and pedal up/down and the Rain Piano with 10 velocity splits. From those samples 8 have been chosen (8 for pedal up and 8 for pedal down) that gives the instruments an remarkable response and very transparant sound when it comes to playing in different velocities without having to use filters of any kind.
You can read more about the pianos if you follow the link to Bigga Giggas below.

[LittleBiscuit]

My 2 cents:

I own both the Bardstown Bosie and several Post pianos including Grandioso Steinway. I use Giga live only; I don\'t really record or compose with it.

The Bardstown is very playable and authentic. I don\'t know much about mic placement and all that stuff, just what sounds real when compared with real Steinways and Bosendorfers, which I do know something about. Bardstown sounds and plays great.

The Post, however, is not playable live...at all. And I don\'t have the time or patience to \"tweek\" it. So I can\'t use it. And I don\'t hear any of the qualities that Mr. Richardson mentioned. I wish I did.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Originally posted by LittleBiscuit:
My 2 cents:

I own both the Bardstown Bosie and several Post pianos including Grandioso Steinway. I use Giga live only; I don\'t really record or compose with it.

The Bardstown is very playable and authentic. I don\'t know much about mic placement and all that stuff, just what sounds real when compared with real Steinways and Bosendorfers, which I do know something about. Bardstown sounds and plays great.

The Post, however, is not playable live...at all. And I don\'t have the time or patience to \"tweek\" it. So I can\'t use it. And I don\'t hear any of the qualities that Mr. Richardson mentioned. I wish I did.<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">The Grandioso wouldn\'t be my choice for a live piano. I would opt for the Bardstown.

When you\'re playing live, you really don\'t want a \"room\" integrated mic-plot in your sample, because you\'re already playing into a room. Room + Room = MUD.

If you\'re using the Bardstown Bos live, though, I suggest collapsing the left and right sides towards each other a bit in the DSP station. That way you get a more cohesive image, especially if your PA setup is 15-20 feet spread or even larger.

[LittleBiscuit]

Great (and simple) suggestion for a wide speaker setup, Bruce. My setup is quite unusual, though. The speakers are tightly (and strategically) grouped, so the stereo separation works \"as is\".

But your tip is certainly applicable to the typical live setup.

Thanks Bruce!