What new features you would like to see in the future in PTQ? Tfort wrote: iOS version. Nothing else remotely as important. Wouldn't this be too much asking for an ARM architecture?
Pianoteq is high-class virtual piano software offering superb dynamics, natural resonances and unique physical parameters. The powerful innovative features of Pianoteq, based on physical modeling.
Perhaps a reduced version? I disagree with your statement. I think ARM architecture is in bar with intel and ahead what comes to single core performance. And anyway PTQ is quite easy in CPU performance so I see no problems running PTQ in ARM based mobile devices.
ARM architecture is very efficient for unprocessed (like in unprocessed food ) light softwares. Install Ubuntu Mate on a Raspberry PI 3, then Ubuntu software center from the welcome screen. You will see which softwares crash (why for instance Gimp works, but Krita crash). By the time you find 10 you will see the pattern and predict before even trying which aren't handled without issues. The Benchmarks you check on the web are for everyday use instructions, while those might be accurate for over 80% of the time, it takes less than 1% necessary coding which can not be efficiently compiled to make any porting impossible.
For instance, my third generation Raspberry pi beats an old Intel Atom netbook I have for typical softwares. But when I come across FPU intensive stuff, the Raspberry PI will either quit, crash or not even run it. But since for common tasks, those are not required the usual benchmarks don't always show them. To jump from one architecture to another, it takes a development team and a lot of ressources. And besides, Apple has its own modified version of ARM which does not represent the 'natural' ARM architecture.
Why I am saying this is that, I believe it would better for Modarff (in terms of revenues) to drop IOS and concentrate on ARM embedded systems running Linux, if such a porting was possible. This way many companies might build electronic pianos based on simple standard ports. Even schemas might be available and do it yourself. Lucy wrote: Wouldn't this be too much asking for an ARM architecture? Perhaps a reduced version? I disagree with your statement. I think ARM architecture is in bar with intel and ahead what comes to single core performance.
And anyway PTQ is quite easy in CPU performance so I see no problems running PTQ in ARM based mobile devices. ARM architecture is very efficient for unprocessed (like in unprocessed food ) light softwares. Install Ubuntu Mate on a Raspberry PI 3, then Ubuntu software center from the welcome screen. You will see which softwares crash (why for instance Gimp works, but Krita crash). By the time you find 10 you will see the pattern and predict before even trying which aren't handled without issues. The Benchmarks you check on the web are for everyday use instructions, while those might be accurate for over 80% of the time, it takes less than 1% necessary coding which can not be efficiently compiled to make any porting impossible. For instance, my third generation Raspberry pi beats an old Intel Atom netbook I have for typical softwares.
But when I come across FPU intensive stuff, the Raspberry PI will either quit, crash or not even run it. But since for common tasks, those are not required the usual benchmarks don't always show them.
To jump from one architecture to another, it takes a development team and a lot of ressources. And besides, Apple has its own modified version of ARM which does not represent the 'natural' ARM architecture. Why I am saying this is that, I believe it would better for Modarff (in terms of revenues) to drop IOS and concentrate on ARM embedded systems running Linux, if such a porting was possible. This way many companies might build electronic pianos based on simple standard ports.
Even schemas might be available and do it yourself. Could we please stop this? Each time someone expresses the very understandable desire for an IOS version, out pops a technological and marketing guru who, without any detailed knowledge of either the software or the company explains why this is impossible, commercially disastrous, etc. I do not see the point, but the common motivation seems to be that Modartt should instead concentrate on the guru's special interest, which sounds fine to me, but please understand that other people may want other things. It should be possible to ask for a feature without submitting a technology blueprint, a feasibilty study and a marketing plan. For me, I settled a while ago by buying Korg's app, which does a credible job, but ymmv.
For the rest, I should add that I think Modartt is extremely accomodating to their user community's, not so much in communication, but certainly in developments. EvilDragon wrote: Screw iOS. Financial suicide either way. Excellent points. Modartt should also cease development of Linux and MacOs versions immediately, or indeed anything that Mr. Dragon does not use.
Focus on Windows desktops, that is clearly where the money is. In fact the optimal approach would be to clone Mr. Dragon's computer and preferences, and devote the entire development team's afforts on improving that.
Sorry that this sounds a bit more personal than I would have liked; please substitute X for Dragon. (My 50th and last post on this forum, clearly not a high. So long, and thanks for all the fish.). Tfort wrote: iOS version. Nothing else remotely as important. Frankly iOS fanboys need to become more realistic. The world does not revolve around Apple.
If you're going to adopt this arrogant sounding tone for iOS you're going to annoy people. Nothing else may be as important to an iOS user, but I could say the same about Linux - nothing else is as remotely as important to me as a Linux version. If anything Android (which I personally detest about the same as iOS) is a more significant platform going forward. However, Atom CPU based systems already have enough power and run OSes that Modartt do support, so switching to ARM would be perhaps a step they don't want to invest in.
EvilDragon wrote: Screw iOS. Financial suicide either way. Excellent points. Modartt should also cease development of Linux and MacOs versions immediately, or indeed anything that Mr. Dragon does not use. Focus on Windows desktops, that is clearly where the money is. In fact the optimal approach would be to clone Mr.
Dragon's computer and preferences, and devote the entire development team's afforts on improving that. Sorry that this sounds a bit more personal than I would have liked; please substitute X for Dragon. (My 50th and last post on this forum, clearly not a high. So long, and thanks for all the fish.) You're taking this too personal.
Why would anyone want to restrict himself to ios devices when running Pianoteq? Wouldn't you want the optimum configuration? Would be nice if you post what you want in a reduced version? ARM devices (including apples). Are good for scoring, very practical. Light, quick and does not take space.
Everyone can start working on those devices to then later 'render' them on x86. Thing is that you must consider that Korg survives on several products while from what I read Modarrf on one software. For Korg such a move represents little in comparison to Modarff. Korg can recycle resources from elsewhere, but this must represent a lot for Modarff to invest a whole development team for a reduced version. It would be what the French call a 'caprice'.
![Pianoteq Pianoteq](/uploads/1/2/4/1/124111438/667949459.jpg)
If the Linux and MacOS version cease to exist, I will be unhappy in the beginning, but hey I am running Pianoteq on netbooks I got for the equivalent of 200 US $ which originally comes with Windows 10. For me the OS is not that much important, it is only good at running the software I want. I do not know if that would make sense. But I have the following idea that I would like in the next version of Pianoteq. I would like that the slider 'condition' did not change the pitch of the notes, but changed the parameters 'width of unison' and 'balance of unison' individually in each overtone. For example: I increase the 'condition' and in the note becomes the first overtone with the value of the width of the unison 1.2 and the unison balance for example 0.1.
The second overtone is width unison 1.13 and the balance unison is 0.07. The third is the width of the unison 1.25 and the unison balance is 0.15.etc. And so differently in each note. I wonder what effect this can bring to the sound and timbre? And it's great, then, to make the 'condition' applicable separately to each note in the 'Pro' version. Well, when reading all these amazing innovative suggestions, as an old retired teacher, I remember that I learned something from my pupils. They wanted to do things at speed that was comfortable for them, in own pace.
I think Modartt have their own schedule and have found the place in the sun. And they are surrounded by us in this forum - hopefully we give them a gentle push every now and then and help them keep the enthusiasm (hope I found the right words in english). But, I myself, can wait and enjoy then, when something new comes up. Wrote: I run Pianoteq on a dedicated PC next to my DP.
I would really like to see the option of running Pianoteq as a service so the GUI does not start up and I can run it is I want to make changes. Perhaps this can already be done and I am not aware, if so let me know.
You can put PTQ in an Autostart folder. That's how I did it. I only switch on my Laptop (but keeping it closed), wait for some seconds, then it works. As long as I use the last setup, I don't have to do anything on the keyboard, nor do I need a screen. The GUI is running, ok, but who cares?
Only when I want to make changes, I open the Laptop. Arkanda wrote: I only switch on my Laptop (but keeping it closed), wait for some seconds, then it works. Out of subject, but just for my information, how can you switch a laptop on if it is closed? Thanks, sK It's a Thinkpad in a docking station.
I configured it to no action when the laptop is closed. And the dockingstation has also a power switch outside.
![Pianoteq Pianoteq](/uploads/1/2/4/1/124111438/427657993.jpg)
Then I configured Windows to automatically logon. So this is very convenient, just hit the power switch on the docking station, wait some seconds, then PTQ runs without any further interaction and I can begin to play.
Wrote: I run Pianoteq on a dedicated PC next to my DP. I would really like to see the option of running Pianoteq as a service so the GUI does not start up and I can run it is I want to make changes. Perhaps this can already be done and I am not aware, if so let me know. You can put PTQ in an Autostart folder. That's how I did it.
I only switch on my Laptop (but keeping it closed), wait for some seconds, then it works. As long as I use the last setup, I don't have to do anything on the keyboard, nor do I need a screen. The GUI is running, ok, but who cares? Only when I want to make changes, I open the Laptop. I do this currently and have tried having the program autostart fullscreen or windowed. Certainly this is not a deal breaker to me.
My PC running Pianoteq runs headless meaning no keyboard, mouse, or monitor. It just hangs out next to my DP. I access the PC from another computer using RDP. When the pianoteq pc is rebooted and I RDP into it the program size is messed up, even when running full screen.
Honestly, it is not a big deal to me and I think my situation is unique. I would consider trying the linux version but unfortunately I think my audio interface does not support linux. +1 for realtime chord detection - that would be awesome! + infty for Android & iOS versions. As far as sound is concerned:.
Pianoteq is mostly enjoyable to me when used with headphones (and even then - mostly in Binaural mode) No matter how good (or even professional) the speakers I try, it always sounds pretty bad. Pianoteq's sound is much weaker, less vivid and fades all too quickly compared to real acoustic pianos. The mid-range sounds to me more like a guitar than a piano.
There's definitely a lot of room for improvement in those areas. One more thing that's completely unrelated to PTQ6: In the Listen page on the Pianoteq's website there are several recording with customized modes. It would have been awesome to be able to download these FXP files. Bmoshe wrote:.Pianoteq's sound is much weaker, less vivid and fades all too quickly compared to real acoustic pianos./. Well that's just not true. Pianoteq's notes decay just as long as on a real piano (low notes decay sometimes over a minute, which is exactly how it is in the real world too).
The decay replicates that on an acoustic. Re sound in general, so much depends upon the equipment being used. I have used Pianoteq in 2 houses, several different rooms with different equipment and played it in recitals in different venues. Pianoteq is not perfect - what is - but there are so many adjustments it is possible to achieve a good sound to suit your equipment/room. I don't use headphones: never had the use for them with my acoustic grands.
Yes, I have spent many hours tweaking Pianoteq instruments to suit my rooms/equipment, but I no longer go through fitting sound deadening/funding expensive technician tweaks getting acoustic grands to suit my living room. Re this thread, the only aspect which has defeated me is the balance at forte levels between bass and treble. Softening the forte hammer hardness reduces the treble brightness but makes the bass somewhat woolly. A clear crisp bass results - at forte and above - in a too bright treble.
It's probably down to my ears but certainly doesn't spoil my enjoyment. The Pro version - I have the Standard - might resolve this. Having enjoyed the improvements with the SteinwayB and even more the Grotrian I could live with what I have now. 4 presets A to D rather than just the 2 would be nice. I have my tweaked, custom version of the Ruckers permanently available, so having more than one piano immediately available would save me searching for them.
Off topic slightly, the main improvement for me would be for the other pianos I have to be upgraded to the touch and sound quality of the Grotrian. If Modarrt went out business - heaven forbid - I would not look out for better instruments from elsewhere, as long as I could continue to play the present Pianoteq instruments. Sandalholme wrote: Re this thread, the only aspect which has defeated me is the balance at forte levels between bass and treble. Softening the forte hammer hardness reduces the treble brightness but makes the bass somewhat woolly.
A clear crisp bass results - at forte and above - in a too bright treble. It's probably down to my ears but certainly doesn't spoil my enjoyment.
The Pro version - I have the Standard - might resolve this. It will, as you can adjust all three hammer hardness slider values - per key! Specifically, I want to see new features added to the Pianoteq interface. The Pianoteq interface, let's face it; because in my view, it in its present state (in which it has been for a duration now) is lacking, definitely. It lacks numerous things I and presumably others would like to see on it, if possible.
Since personally I got about every upgrade or update that was released after version 2.1 and am now a Pianoteq Pro user, I've noticed features are absent in its interface design. Some I suggest appear below: 1.) Loop Feature At your desktop when you load a midi file and adjust or fine tune Pianoteq parameters to it, if you want to continue adjustments pass the length of the file, you have to restart or relocate the interface play head to a point in the file timeline, intermittently. However, if were added a possible loop feature (that is) a clickable area of the file you highlight, you could select (midi loop start and stop) positions and afterwards (as you listen to your midi file) make the necessary Pianoteq parameter adjustments to your overall piano sound, uninterruptedly, and without your physically er annoyingly having constantly to restart the file only because you want to hear just section of it, repeatedly. I use 'Stage' as I'm using it to learn the piano again after a very long break. I'm using midi files to learn songs that I like but find it difficult to distinguish which notes are being played, as the visual cue can be too subtle to distinguish in the virtual keyboard; it's especially difficult to distinguish which black keys are being played.
Could you provide the means of customising the colours (better highlighting the keys being played) in the virtual keyboard please? Please also remember that many people learning the piano will tend to buy the stage version, so any tuition tools or integration with 3rd party tuition aids/tools will be offered within this version are likely to be greatly appreciated by this segment of your customer base. Tris wrote: I use 'Stage' as I'm using it to learn the piano again after a very long break. I'm using midi files to learn songs that I like but find it difficult to distinguish which notes are being played, as the visual cue can be too subtle to distinguish in the virtual keyboard; it's especially difficult to distinguish which black keys are being played. Could you provide the means of customising the colours (better highlighting the keys being played) in the virtual keyboard please?
Please also remember that many people learning the piano will tend to buy the stage version, so any tuition tools or integration with 3rd party tuition aids/tools will be offered within this version are likely to be greatly appreciated by this segment of your customer base. You can increase the size of the panel (with the keyboard) if that helps. Ideally you should get at least a midi keyboard. I advice a 76 keys Casio, they can be had for very cheap. This way if you connect it, you can simultaneously use Pianoteq and another software at the same time and plus the Casio (which is made specifically for your needs) has a screen which shows the keys being pressed.
Probably there are other brands, but I have no experience with those. Furthermore, with a midi student keyboard, you can output midi files to your keyboard and have the notes displayed on its screen. Scherbakov.al wrote: I do not know if that would make sense.
But I have the following idea that I would like in the next version of Pianoteq. I would like that the slider 'condition' did not change the pitch of the notes, but changed the parameters 'width of unison' and 'balance of unison' individually in each overtone. For example: I increase the 'condition' and in the note becomes the first overtone with the value of the width of the unison 1.2 and the unison balance for example 0.1. The second overtone is width unison 1.13 and the balance unison is 0.07. The third is the width of the unison 1.25 and the unison balance is 0.15.etc. And so differently in each note. I wonder what effect this can bring to the sound and timbre?
And it's great, then, to make the 'condition' applicable separately to each note in the 'Pro' version. Similar request - pro already allows adjusting the relative volumes of overtones per note. Why not also allow individual tuning of the fundamental and of each overtone of each note? Scherbakov.al wrote: I do not know if that would make sense. But I have the following idea that I would like in the next version of Pianoteq.
I would like that the slider 'condition' did not change the pitch of the notes, but changed the parameters 'width of unison' and 'balance of unison' individually in each overtone. For example: I increase the 'condition' and in the note becomes the first overtone with the value of the width of the unison 1.2 and the unison balance for example 0.1. The second overtone is width unison 1.13 and the balance unison is 0.07. The third is the width of the unison 1.25 and the unison balance is 0.15.etc. And so differently in each note. I wonder what effect this can bring to the sound and timbre?
And it's great, then, to make the 'condition' applicable separately to each note in the 'Pro' version. Similar request - pro already allows adjusting the relative volumes of overtones per note.
Why not also allow individual tuning of the fundamental and of each overtone of each note? In the pro version (not sure about other versions), we can already adjust the tuning of each note. Open the drop box from the upper left corner of any Note Edit pane, and choose Detune, the first item in the list. The pitch of each overtone cannot be directly controlled, but changing the length of the strings will change the pitch of all of the overtones.
Pianoteq is high-class virtual piano software offering superb dynamics, natural resonances and unique physical parameters. The powerful innovative features of Pianoteq, based on physical modeling and real time sound generation, make it the natural choice for demanding musicians including composers, producers and keyboardists. Pianoteq features also other instruments such as harpsichords, electric pianos, vibraphones, and historical instruments. Pianoteq can be run in standalone mode and as a VST/AU/RTAS plugin. Full Specifications What's new in version 4.5.1 Version 4.5.1 has fixed a crash in the delay effect and fixed crash with midi automation of some sliders. General Publisher Publisher web site Release Date April 12, 2013 Date Added April 19, 2013 Version 4.5.1 Category Category Subcategory Operating Systems Operating Systems Windows XP/Vista/7 Additional Requirements None Download Information File Size 21.32MB File Name pianoteqtrialv451.exe Popularity Total Downloads 782 Downloads Last Week 1 Pricing License Model Free to try Limitations Not available Price $325.88.