• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Topic: EWQLP Reviews??

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Senior Member musicmad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    110

    EWQLP Reviews??

    Hi

    Due to the release of (EWQLP) i'm curious to know what reviews people have made about this product, assuming thay have purchased it..

    Cheers
    Musicmad

  2. #2

    Re: EWQLP Reviews??

    Hi, Just i am here to find the the information about....Piano.

  3. #3

    Re: EWQLP Reviews??

    Excellent question:

    If you do a search for Quantum Leap Pianos in this thread, you will find a lot of people have talked about them, especially a couple months ago. They are some of the pianos people seem to be most interested in right now.

    Most people seem to want compare Quantum Leap Pianos, Garritan Authorized Steinway, Bluthner Digital Model One, Galaxy II and Pianoteq to Ivory.

    If your preference is to use mic recordings with a lot of included ambience (from a distant miking) then your choices are Quantum Leap or Garritan. If you want a very tweakable sound that can get real punchy or pretty smooth, then the Galaxy II collection has some very nice aspects (and I've enjoyed my experience with the Bösendorfer DE). But in terms of my personal piano collection, the one I am most looking forward to getting experience with is the Bluthner Digital Model One.

  4. #4

    Re: EWQLP Reviews??

    Quote Originally Posted by musicmad View Post
    Hi

    Due to the release of (EWQLP) i'm curious to know what reviews people have made about this product, assuming thay have purchased it..

    Cheers
    Musicmad
    Hi,
    Before I give my thoughts and impressions I think it is important to know that I play piano at home (Jazz, classical) for recreational purposes. No recording nor gigs, so, mixing and portability is no issue.

    Although I already own a reasonable acoustic piano and a digital Yamaha DGX 620 piano, which both have their own specific qualities, I became attracted to QL Pianos because of the convincing soundquality in their (EWQL) demos. I thought it would be great to have these great pianos at my fingertips at home, so I bought the set.

    Once downloaded and connected to my Yamaha weighted keyboard and professional headphones, QL Pianos gave me instantly two signals: the sound is rich and musically inspiring, but also distant (next door) and more like a recording than live. Just like the samples. They are recordings!

    For those who want to use QL Pianos in recordings this is of course no problem, but if you expect the presence of a real acoustic piano you will be disappointed.

    In my experience the "simple" Yamaha manages to deliver a better presence through its "simple" built-in speakers, suggesting that a well tuned speaker system could be the answer. Therefore I intend to experiment a little further with active monitors or PA sound systems in stead of (the unnatural experience of) headphones.

    I would be very interested to hear from others who have gone through this and think they found a solution.

  5. #5

    Re: EWQLP Reviews??

    Quote Originally Posted by Pevanka View Post
    , but also distant (next door) and more like a recording than live. Just like the samples. They are recordings!
    You of course, have nailed the problem with samples - they are recordings, and as such are essentially static, whereas playing piano is not static, but very dynamic.

    There are some superb sounds on the market, and the sound of a single note can be very realistic and convincing. Software, with a powerful computer, can massage the samples to some extent, but when the starting point is static, the static nature can't be overcome, and the result is inevitable.

    MIDI provides 128 levels of velocity/loudness (and there are those who wish for more levels). When piano hammers hit the strings at higher velocities, it not only creates a louder sound, the tone produced is harsher. This is part of the problem.

    When samples have 128 velocity layers, they may start to approach the dynamics of a real piano, but with the present systems it is inevitable that there will be a "switch" between sample levels and this destroys realism.

    A sample sound will work in a mix with other instruments where the piano isn't front and centre. With solo piano, the sampled sound loses reality because the discontinuities become much more noticeable.

    Glenn

  6. #6

    Re: EWQLP Reviews??

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn NK View Post
    You of course, have nailed the problem with samples - they are recordings, and as such are essentially static, whereas playing piano is not static, but very dynamic.

    There are some superb sounds on the market, and the sound of a single note can be very realistic and convincing. Software, with a powerful computer, can massage the samples to some extent, but when the starting point is static, the static nature can't be overcome, and the result is inevitable.

    MIDI provides 128 levels of velocity/loudness (and there are those who wish for more levels). When piano hammers hit the strings at higher velocities, it not only creates a louder sound, the tone produced is harsher. This is part of the problem.

    When samples have 128 velocity layers, they may start to approach the dynamics of a real piano, but with the present systems it is inevitable that there will be a "switch" between sample levels and this destroys realism.

    A sample sound will work in a mix with other instruments where the piano isn't front and centre. With solo piano, the sampled sound loses reality because the discontinuities become much more noticeable.

    Glenn
    I'm inclined to disagree...

    A sampler doesn't need more resolution than the hardware (fingers & keyboard). 128 is more than anyone needs.

    I don't believe that the "switch between sample levels" is what destroys realism. Just imagine a real piano that allows no more than 20 levels of velocity (it would be interesting to check the resolution of historic playrolls). For the sophisticated pianist this may be a limitation. But NOT something that distroys realism.

    Or are you referring to the fact that the blending from one sample to another suffers from inconsistencies? E.g. that volume is adjusted continuously while color is not? This can indeed be the case (I think of a specific, rather old piano library, I'm not going to name here). But the better libraries deal with this quite well. (BTW: some irregularities may in fact increase the impression of realism).

    However, you may be right with respect to release samples. In contrast to the 1-dimensional velocity space, it is getting 2-dimensional (initial velocity versus time-to-release) and the sample resolution may indeed be insufficient.

    Besides - the original topic ambience vs. closed mic is a completely different issue. It may indeed destroy realism if you sit directly in front of a keyboard and the piano sounds as if you were far away. But this is more of a matter of taste and style of music you play. I personally tend to find ambience recordings quite realistic...

    -mat

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •