Why is it when Guy Bacos plays this instrument in the demos and videos it sounds spectacular?
What's his secret?
-
Sound is not everything in a piano VST that is meant to be played live with a keyboard(not just sequenced). The simulated instrument should mimic how the real instrument reacts, and this instrument fails, almost as if a gross error or simply no attention was paid to the MIDI velocity -> velocity layer map.
Goodness, thank you SO much for confirming what I thought was just in my head or due to my inexperience with a physical Steinway-D. I absolutely do love the sample library and its nuances, but the live playability truly suffers from this oversight. I will still use this for rendering the piano track (after some obvious automation), however it hurts to admit I'd rather use something else when coming up with ideas / performing. The less than stellar velocity reaction definitely impedes on creativity. If/when it is improved, it will be the ultimate Steinway D VST.
-
At first I thought it was just my setup but then other people noticed it as well. It's hard for me to believe that this was an intentional choice by VSL. However, what do I know about making piano samples? I just know that it's way too harsh for my ears, and when I turn down the midi sensitivity to something that's manageable, I lose the dynamic range when I do want to play loud.
A colleague and I share this sentiment exactly. If the Steinway simply had the playability / velocity reaction of the Pianoteq 6 Steinway, in my opinion, the search for pianos would be over! Really hoping for a fix soon.
-
-
Why is it when Guy Bacos plays this instrumentin the demos and videos it sounds spectacular? What's his secret?
Technique and skill 😊 I know, not funny, Jasen. I simply couldn't resist! Cheers, Dave😃😃😃
-
Is this another dynamic range issue? In other words, perhaps the timbral velocity is mapped properly but the amplitude differences triggered by velocity are simply too much. So dialing down the dynamic range could fix it. But that is only a speculation as I don't have this instrument.
No, if anything the other way around. The amplitude mapping is more or less okay; it's the timbral mapping that's heavily skewed in favour of fff. If the amplitude were similarly skewed that would actually be better because then it would be quite straightforward to fix with a velocity curve. Unfortunately, that's not the case, so we await some magic from VSL.
-
Opus64, you may find the Piano World thread relevant to your issue.
That said, I see Karavala is posting both there and here, so maybe not. The reply by Erard seems (to me) to address the velocity layer issue.
-
Ideally, we don’t need a midi velocity curve, but a layers velocity curve, and it has to be build inside the player.
If the library has 128 layers, a midi curve will ignore some layers or will group some midi level to the same layer (it depends of the curve form). It’s a rude way to modify the velocity.
The ‘128 midi levels to 128 layers’ equivalence has to stay. That’s why we can’t use external midi tool to solved that problem.
The only way to not lose layers or velocity sensibility with a programmable curve is to change the samples layers volumes mapping inside the player engine.
However I’m not sure we need it key by key. A general layers velocity curve would be fine.
(Sorry again for my poor English)
Regards
Gabriel Plalame
-
I just add this : modify layers volume may affect the realism. If the present curve is the robot’s curve, we probably can fine tune the layers curve, but not much (the curve will lower some samples that were recorded at a louder volume, for example)
(Last edit : it’s hard to say if it’s the robot and/or the instrument and/or a mapping cause(s). If the robot send a perfectly linear strength on each piano key over 128 levels, and if there is no velocity mapping post-production, well, the velocity we get here is just the way the piano react. And we have to adapt our play to it, like a real player has to.)
Gabriel Plalame
-
...(the curve will lower some samples that were recorded at a louder volume, for example)...
I don't think so. I think there is a opportunity to change the velocity value of a keystroke. For example: you hit a velocity value of 50 and it is changed in value 30. When you make a tool with such a curve, you don't change the sample volume.
With this tool you can make a curve, in which e.g. with very high "key hit velocity values" you lower the attenuation in velocity change.For example:
"key hit velocity" 110 changes in velocity 95,
"key hit velocity" 118 changes in velocity 110,
"key hit velocity" 127 stays 127.
In this way you can use the full dynamic range of the piano. I think there is also a disadvantage in this, that has to do with the resolution in certain area's of the velocity curve (sometimes 2 or 3 "hit key values", e.g. values 40-42, can change in this solution in the same velocity value, e.g. 20). But I don't know if this is very audible.
-
Hi MMKA,
I think there is a opportunity to change the velocity value of a keystroke. For example: you hit a velocity value of 50 and it is changed in value 30. When you make a tool with such a curve, you don't change the sample volume.
With this tool you can make a curve, in which e.g. with very high "key hit velocity values" you lower the attenuation in velocity change.For example:
"key hit velocity" 110 changes in velocity 95,
"key hit velocity" 118 changes in velocity 110,
"key hit velocity" 127 stays 127.
In this way you can use the full dynamic range of the piano. I think there is also a disadvantage in this, that has to do with the resolution in certain area's of the velocity curve (sometimes 2 or 3 "hit key values", e.g. values 40-42, can change in this solution in the same velocity value, e.g. 20). But I don't know if this is very audible.That’s what I call a ‘midi to midi velocity curve’ principle. I use a tool like this between my keyboard and my sequencer, called Velocity Curve Changer : http://www.trombettworks.com/velocity.php
Here, a midi level is translate in another midi level, so then yes, as the example you give, in that way, original samples volumes levels aren't affected.
But, in that case, and particularly if it’s a (wonderful) sample library with 128 samples layers per key, you necessary lose samples (/layers), and velocity sensitivity (when several midi levels are pointed to a single midi level (so then to a single sample file/layer), as you describe too).
That’s why I suggest to build what I would call a ‘midi to layer velocity curve’. But the sample player has to handles a separate volume scale from the ‘zero to 127 regular midi scale’, and it has to be much more precise. Then the midi scale can be convert in another 128 scale/layers with different (and independent) volume values, but inside, let’s say, a 512 volume level scale for example.
In another words, if we want the midi scale being targeted to a curve with 128 layers, the ‘target scale’ has to handles more levels. Then we can built a curve without losing any layers. It stays a 128 to 128 ratio with the ability to fine tune the volume layers curve without any layer loss.
However, in that system, the original volume of samples are affected, and maybe the realism with a piano library.
In one case we lose samples and sensitivity, in another case original samples volumes are affected.
Ah. Hard to consider.
I think the second solution (midi to layers velocity curve) may be acceptable with a reasonable curve.
But it’s not easy to do. You need a sophisticated engine with much more than 128 volume levels for layers.
I don’t know if I make it clear, sorry for my strange language.
(I think the best solution would be to play like Guy Bacos, but unfortunately, that patch doesn’t exist. It’s a scandal, no ?)
Gabriel Plalame
-
Hi Gabriel,
To begin with: I understand by what you write about it, that writing English is difficult for you. But I think, that you made yourself very clear in what you wrote 😊. I'm not a native English speaker also. And I know the difficulty to write something complex in another language.
So I understand from what you wrote, that in your solution you need much more layers than 128 and then you can make a choice which layers you use. So then there is a lot of work to do for the team of VSL I think.
I for myself I think I would perhaps never use the most loud layers of a Steinway. But I'm very aware that that is a cause of personal idea for the ideal sound.
I had last week the opportunity to play in a church service on a very beautiful Steinway, a Steinway B (2,11 m), special hired for that occasion (it was with the funeral of my father, who died last week. He was 95 years old, and the piano had always had a very special place in his life. He had a Steinway O 1,80 m and I played the last years often for him. He couldn't play anymore). But on that Steinway B I felt it as a pleasure, that I didn't have to do so much to get a loud tone, almost without heavy arm weight. Of course I used a little, but I got a loud tone very easily. And also playing very soft was easy. The micro dynamics went so natural, in my feeling the piano invited me to play very sensitive and beautiful. For me playing became much easier! I'm sure that that Steinway B could sound much louder than I used, but I didn't need that at all, and I really could play a fortissimo. I think some pianists use a louder fortissimo as I do, but I know also from certain concert pianists who have the same sound ideal as I have. So for me it is not a problem if I miss the loudest tones, because I can express myself very well without them, just as on that real Steinway (in the same week I bought the VSL Steinway and in the sound were really many simularities with the real one. But the keys of the real Steinway played definitely much more easy! I have the MP10 of Kawai). Sorry, a whole story.
But I understand that you need the loudest tones also, and in that case you search for opportunities to use that part of the instrument . I sincerely hope that there will be a solution that works great for you!
-
Sorry, it is just that someone demanding samples beyond 128 velocity levels is just silly. There used to be ONE. Then it was 4 and that was impressive. But now somebody is upset with fewer than 128. I can't help but find that hilarious. People today have no concept of just how much they are constantly demanding, and unsatisfied with.
If MIDI is totally inadequate for your awesome musical demands -- (and why do you have those? Are you the new Rubenstein?? I guess so, you must be powerful and brilliant beyond anything that MIDI can ever accomplish! ) -- then you might want to consider investing in a real piano and play 5000 levels of velocity. Or whatever it translates into. Maybe 10,000. Would that be sufficient for your utterly exquistite level of dynamic control?
In the meantime, doing a recording of MIDI piano, I am still using the Bosendorfer and think it is great. But of course, I am nowhere near this level of artistry.
-
Hi William.
It’s a misunderstanding.
I don’t ask more than 128 layers. (I don’t ask to record anything more anyway.)
The idea is to move layers volumes without losing them.
If the sample library use 128 layers, it needs more than 128 volumes levels to do so, I guess.
It’s hard to explain, (I don’t know how to post a picture on the forum, it’s impossible ?) let’s try an example with a 512 volumes layers scale (not 512 layers !):
Midi volume Layers numbers Layers volumes (512 scale in the exemple)
127 127 511 Gap :
126 126 503 8
125 125 495 8
124 124 488 7
123 123 481 7
122 122 475 6
121 121 469 6
etc.
Here you get a velocity curve with 128 Layers.
Regards
Gabriel Plalame
-
it's the timbral mapping that's heavily skewed in favour of fff.
I would like to 2nd this observation... and think to a small extent, the CFX could use a tweak fixing the bias towards the fortissimo and fortississimo as well. It is a timbral issue, agreed.
For the harshest of tone, only the very top velocities should be reserved for it. (Sort of like "harsh" shorts on the Synchron strings) For the almost-top velocities, I feel there should be a gradual timbral curve. But as of now, if I'm in the upper 1/3, it's all pretty "loud" timbrally.
-
I would like to 2nd this observation... and think to a small extent, the CFX could use a tweak fixing the bias towards the fortissimo and fortississimo as well. It is a timbral issue, agreed.
For the harshest of tone, only the very top velocities should be reserved for it. (Sort of like "harsh" shorts on the Synchron strings) For the almost-top velocities, I feel there should be a gradual timbral curve. But as of now, if I'm in the upper 1/3, it's all pretty "loud" timbrally.
One other thing.... I sent a file over to VSL about the keynoise on the Steinway, which to my ears is really loud, causing a whole lot of noise/mud in the 75-184hz range. If this is adjustable in the sample, then perhaps that would alleviate some of the preceived timbral "bias" towards FFF. Maybe?
