Pianoteq Stage Vs Standard

[Verline Wesolowski]

ButI see there aren't so many files in the FXP corner, and most of them not even rated so one can not tell how good they are.

The question is how difficult should it be to create great presets on my own, does the occasional user should handle it, or this is a work for an experienced sound designer?

And another question is, how inferior are the factory presets found on Pianoteq Stage to the presets the wise user theoretically can create with Pianoteq Standard?

And just for general knowledge, is there a noticeable sound quality difference between Stage\Standard and Pro(PIANOTEQ PRO offers an internal sample rate of up to 192 kHz. Up to 48 kHz in PIANOTEQ Stage and Standard)?

I would consider to buy the standard version. In my opinion, the microphone settings and the ability to tweak the presets worth the investment. You can also load any fxp file created with the Pro version (if I understood correctly, with the stage version, the support of fxp files is limited to basic settings - which could lead to starnge results).

Standard you get to move the microphones, change the temperament, and the design of the piano (size, hammer hardness, and a lot of other things I don't understand too much about) . The microphone settings make a huge difference in tone while also being relatively straight forward to get the sound you are looking for.

Most importantly you can also transfer settings from one preset to another. So say you like the microphone settings (or any other setting you get in standard) from one preset, you can try that out on another instrument/preset and find a new sound. I can confidently say that is worth the money.

The pro version is the one I would be cautions to recommend. Pro lets you adjust the settings you get in Standard for each individual note. If you are a piano tuner, enjoy sound programing, or just somebody that can envisage the necessary tonal character of each note to get that sound you want, then get pro. I got it during the black friday discount and I think it's worth it just to be able to transfer per-note settings to other instruments/presets.

I am fairly sure that the pro and standard versions can only load fxp files for which you have the underlying instrument installed.

e.g. you would need to have the Grotrian installed to run fxps developed from the Grotrian.

It may be OK for use as a demo, but THIS topic is about the value of upgrading from Stage to Standard and in that context it is worth pointing out that the Standard product does NOT allow you to "Play" (as a useful instrument) ALL fxp files.

The choice of fxp as a file name is somewhat unfortunate in that FX has been used in the industry as an abbreviation for "EFFECTS" for a very long time.

I had initially taken this to imply that an fxp file is an EFFECTS file that modifies the sound after it is initially produced - not so.

Yes, to take full advantage of the fxp file, you need to have installed the base instrument on which it is based. Nevertheless, it allows you to get a feel of the instrument and perhaps convince you to buy the correspondent module.

For example:

Love one specific mic-arrangement in one of the DEMO-Instruments? Save it as MIC-setup, give it a name you like, load your instrument as usual, go into MIC-settings and load the saved arrangement. Voyla!

Question aimed at the more serious piano players here who either own or have plenty of experience with hardware digital pianos.

I think Ravenscroft is superb, but have never had chance to compare with a Nord Stage, Korg Kronos, etc. Would love to know well in competes in this field.

Nord can download fantastic pianos forever. If the action were better (now they are incorporating a modified Kawai RH111 action in their 4K piano) in a 2k keyboard I would go for it, tho I love the Kawai ES8 I have now, both action and sound (over headphones, onboard speakers just ok, which may make the Kawai MP7se a better value as a midi controller in the same price range almost, with the same piano samples). Also the mechanical noises in the Kawais are very adjustable.

@michael_m said:

It's not the sound that makes a difference, but the keyboard. You can have the best sampled piano in the world, but it won't feel the same as a good weighted hammer action keyboard.

I agree, and I have a decent hammer action MIDI keyboard (Studiologic SL73 Studio) with which to play Ravenscroft. I also have an upright acoustic at home so am all to aware of the differences in feel between the real thing and an emulation.

I don't have a high end keyboard, but I've noticed that picky people with high end digital pianos often resort to using software VST's. I have low end Roland FP-10 digital piano, and sometimes use Pianoteq VST and/or Garritan CFX Lite running on a PC for sounds; both are significantly better than FP-10's built-in sounds. But I think a lot of people get hung up on the VST's and waste a lot of time and mental effort on agonizing over which is "best". The truth, in my opinion, is that most of the stuff out there (including my FP-10's built-in sounds) is good enough. Obsessing about finding best VST can get to be like audiophiles who agonize over their gear, listening for tiny differences (that may or may not be there) while missing out on the pleasure of hearing the music.

FWIW, Ravenscroft has a decently regarded desktop version that has a few differences from the iOS version, but ". . . [t]he rest is identical, the same samples are used as well as the same number of velocities and our advanced scripting that makes the Ravenscroft so playable." That should tell you something about difference in overall sound quality. See the chart near bottom of this page for the differences: The main thing missing from iOS Ravenscroft, for me, is the half-pedaling, sustain is only full-on or full-off.

I agree that the keyboard action has an important part in how a piano feels to play, I can't enjoy playing one without a good keybed. The most expensive are not necessarily the best, I found them to be very much a matter of taste.

I don't agree that sound doesn't make much of a difference. I believe that the evergreen discussions about "the" best piano sound are fueled by the fact that there is none.

There are more acoustic piano sounds than there are electric piano sounds and most of them have their individual and good position in whatever style of music when combined well with the piece.

@mrufino1 From the day that I once played a Steinway grand on a stage - just for a few minutes - I knew that there's nothing like playing a real, good grand piano in a room that is large enough to let it breathe. Virtual instruments are getting closer and closer to the sound of the real deal but the playing experience makes a huge difference for the player indeed.

IOS Pianos consume less space in every sense of the term "space". And sometimes good enough is more than fine when you want to play at 2AM. It's perfect. The illusion is complete and I have recordings to prove it.

Still, PianoTeq's approach on an IOS device would be amazing and consume even less space since they don't use samples... just CPU cycles. They ported the damn thing to the Raspberry Pi. So, they could do it. I hope some smart young programmer is working on his own modeled piano to give us a space conservative option.

Yeah, I agree, collecting VST's can be seen as a relatively inexpensive hobby. I admit I get a sort of satisfaction using Pianoteq and switching from, say, the "Bluethner" to imagine myself at the keyboard of a "Steinway D". Probably more satisfaction than I would, I think, if they had named the pianos, "Piano 1" and "Piano 2". So it's partly a psychological thing. (At the same time, I recognize that they've put a lot of effort into making their VST's actually sound and respond like the piano they're named after, and that people familiar with the acoustic models feel the similarity.)

Yeah, strange that they say "otherwise identical" given disparity in size. Regarding velocity curves, though, I think you should be able to get a curve identical to what you'd have using the desktop version by routing the ios controller's midi through an iOS app that applies a velocity curve before it's fed to iOS Ravenscroft.

I assumed "layers" was what they meant by "velocities" here: "The rest is identical, the same samples are used as well as the same number of velocities. . . " But fewer layers would seem to be an obvious way to account for at least part of the size discrepancy. I guess that's also asserting that in saying "the rest is identical", they didn't really mean "the rest is identical", just marketing-speak, somehow.

I have a new freebie that compares favorably to the Ravenscroft and its all of 268mb in size! Chateau Grand will run on soundfont player bs-16i and you can get it from the bottom of the Piano section on my site. Take the Pepsi challenge....

Demo Here:

3a8082e126