🎹Addictive Keys vs Pianoteq Piano VST Plugin Comparison & Demo - Modartt & XLN Audio🎹

[@okay1904]

I have come to a similar conclusion to something Stu said in a previous video, that the quality of sampling of some modern pianos is so good and realistic, that the plugins/samples are so transparent, that the end result you hear is not a testament to the plugin/samples, but rather an opportunity to evaluate the actual pianos which were sampled. From this I end up with some thoughts, on acoustic pianos. 1. In today's world, most of the sampled pianos made in the last 15 years are pretty accurate representations of the piano, so if you do not like the sound, its more of a reflection of the piano which was sampled, not just the model, but the specific copy of the piano, which was sampled. 2. So you have a choice of different kinds of piano sounds, based on the product you buy. Huge variety of different piano sounds on offer, just depends on what you need - very similar to the real world of real acoustic pianos. 3. There is a second criteria - presets - which one has the presets that suit your level of pianistic skill and music genre? 4. Third criteria is level of control - how tweakable is it - and do you have the skill to use this to your advantage or too much choice will actually confuse you, and you end up making things worse. Which is why for some, the presets provided are important. One key aspect of level control is the availability of controls to enable easier matching of key velocity with your own keyboard controller. 5. Do you want a complex tone like a Steinway, or a more pure tone with fewer overtones, like a Yamaha. Do you want vintage and soft, Honky tonkish, or gospel piano like a Yamaha C7. How "hard" do you want the hammers to sound...? Do you want a grand piano sound, or an upright. Do you want modern or a vintage sound. Do you want very accurate tuning, like you find in a digital piano, or a more realistic tuning - which is not super perfect.? , etc, etc... lots of things to think about. A lot of this depends on the piano itself, and the room and microphones/preamps used to record it, but it also is a function of taste of the piano sample developer. 6, Finally - some sounds need a more powerful computer setup with SSD drives and a fast CPU, to process huge amounts of samples, in real time. Some hints. Simple - easy to use pianos - look at Native Instruments, typically cos they use only one mixed stereo set of samples. Not too expensive to acquire, but not the greatest sounding also. Adequate for most uses. Modern/Super realistic - look at the Vienna Symphonic pianos, Garritan CFX and the ViLabs Ravenscroft 275. If you want that top of the line grand sound, these are about the very best ever produced. These represent the pinnacle of the best pianos built with the most current piano manufacturing techniques, and are some of the most expensive pianos you can buy today. Strident - spiky not too warm, with lots of microphone options - look at the products from Production Voices. You can start with a simple cheap version, of the piano and upgrade to one with more microphone positions. The higher end products are pretty expensive, so suggest you try out the cheaper versions and see if you like the sound, before committing to the full product. The higher end versions are also very taxing on your computer, needing very fast SSD's and fast CPU's. Alternatives - which may not appeal to everyone - products from Addictive Keys, The Keyscape acoustic piano, Sampletekk. And the Synthogy pianos. Pianoteq is in its own category - but I think its an acquired taste - if you have extra money buy it. Not sure it would be my 1st choice of product to own. What's missing in the sampled piano world? The most modern pianos are great to have samples of, but I tend to miss the pianos from about the 1920's to 2005 such as the Yamaha CF3's or classic Steinway D's, and the Yamaha C7, It would be great to see a similar quality of sampling of these older pianos, using the kind of extensive sampling that products like ViLabs, Vienna Symphonic Library, Production Voices, and Garritan, have achieved. These older pianos have a more intimate tone, and would be a superb complement to the modern piano sounds, cos these are the sounds of pretty much everything that has been recorded to date, so the latest piano sounds sampled are a bit out of touch with what our ears have been used to. I rediscovered the acoustic piano sound on a Yamaha CP33, which I had "dismissed" for many years, as not being good enough, and for many years played only piano samples, using this stage piano only as a controller. But a few months of house reorganisation, when I has only the in built sounds of this stage piano, opened up a whole new world of appreciation for the slightly older sound of acoustic pianos which predate products like the Yamaha CFX - such as the Yamaha CF3, or a smaller more intimate version of the CFX, like the CF6 - see video in link below. So the largest pianos, (probably with the exception of the latest Bechsteins, have been well sampled, but we also need some more from the smaller, more intimate pianos like the CF6, or vintage older grands and uprights. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3jQZph4i6d8r9U

[@JoeLinux2000]

Very thoughtful post with solid opinions. While I'm a Pianoteq guy because it runs on Linux, I know the Vienna Symphony pianos and other virtuals have a warmth and ambiance that seems lacking in Pianoteq. I know for certain that Pianoteq sounds more authentic and rich when supported by either the CFX or "Pop Grand" which may allegedly be the C3 or C6.

[@armsby]

As a recording engineer, I tried some vst pianos a few years back - Pianotec was one, True Pianos another. They all fell apart when pressing the mono button! First lesson in microphone technique and recording alike is mono compatiblity for various (important) reasons. So my tip for production use is ultra basic. Hit mono BEFORE you test your pianos. For home users, it's no problem. I must test some current versions . . . .

[@tylerjackson7586]

yup pianoteq 6.7 has huge phase issues

[@RudieVissenberg]

Just want to add that the price difference is not big, you can get the basic Pianoteq 7 with 2 instruments of your own choosing for € 129 including VAT. You get a lot for your money.

[@travisdunkley3044]

Forget the plugins, your playing is great!

[@SheikhSoundz]

I was most definitely feeling addictive keys more. PT had a lot of high end frequencies i hadnto turn my volume down.

[@MerriamPianos]

That is certainly fair! They both have their strengths of course. And each will resonate with different players musically. :)

[@madonobel]

would you make video on how to record piano sound as deep and rich the way you do, your videos sound is higher more bright and more clear than most of piano sound videos on KZbin, like hardware and software needed to capture high quality sound like you do, thanks

[@JoeLinux2000]

Quality recording is an art for sure.

[@frankg4819]

Do you have a video on how to set up a system like you are using? If not could you do one that shows what software and hardware you would need ? Thanks for all the great info that you share in all your other videos!

[@tbg6nb]

People compare these plugins because from a producer's perspective it does not really matter what the technology behind it is. The fundamental thing is if it sounds good or not and this is independent of the technology since there are sample based instruments that sound superb and that sound bad

[@thomasfeldbauer5025]

Would be interseting, how a reasonable priced VST like Addicive Keys compares against Kawais or Yamahas internal sound-engines from their best digitals, aka CA-79/99 or CLP-7x5)

[@JoeLinux2000]

It would be interesting to know how they sound when combined with Addictive Keys or other virtual pianos.

[@GFhornet]

Yamaha has excellent CFX and bosendorfer imperial sounds. No need for other sampled vst. But! Pianoteq! This is another story. I have the Yamaha CSP-170 and I play pianoteq using my piano's speakers. It's outstanding. You see, in pianoteq there is not 5-6 samples per key. It generates real time sound, using all the 127 (!!!!!) midi signals per key!!! Pianoteq is alive like acoustic piano.

[@thomasfeldbauer5025]

@@GFhornet Thanks for your thoughts. Sure, pianoteq stands out of the crowd. But for the sampled VST I am curious. They claim to have sampled 20 layers per key and maybe do interpolation inbetween them. Some use gigabytes of RAM to store those samples. Yamaha and Kawai are very silent about the number of layers they sampled. 5-6 as you said maybe, I dunno. I know Kawai adds some modeling. And I guess Yamaha has some tricks in the sleve, too. But still I am quite sure, VSTs are superior over the built in engines. The question is: how much better and is it worth fiddling around with extra hard- and software.

[@NimeuMusic]

I returned my Kawai CA99. The VSTs are so much better. The onboard sounds have no chance.

[@GFhornet]

@@thomasfeldbauer5025 I would put it this way: Sampled VSTs are the same with each piano's samples. They are all quality samples. But VSTs are maybe better in the parameters and the user changes that offer. In pianos the parameters are limited. But tone's quality is almost the same (at new high end digital pianos put very good samples)

[@napilopez]

Amazing playing as always, and just another day of requesting you test Embertone Walker D Lite. It can take some tweaking to run smoothly, but at $39 without requiring the full version of Kontakt, I think it has to be the most bang-for-your buck library out there. If you don't mind the single mic position, it's one of my keepers along with Ravenscroft and Pianoteq. And the full library isn't unreasonable at $149, plus there are alacarte options for mic positions too.

[@paullongmusic]

Thank you so much for this valuable VST piano comparison. I really appreciated your playing skills. I would love to know the name of the songs you were playing.

[@aquaticborealis4877]

Can you compare Arturia Piano V2?

[@lucasschaffer948]

I'm looking for a decent piano library and I gave a shot to Arturia V 3 (you can download yourself with their software center). Unfortunately didn't sound good to me. Some keys in the majority of the pianos sounds like other string instruments. Sometimes sounded like an harp or something like that, it didn't have the real piano quality to it. Maybe it's not quite there yet but it's a versatile intrument with cool features and settings. Pianoteq sounds better, but I really don't know, I never tested myself. I think Keyscape is one way to go, maybe Addictive Keys but I came across the Spitfire's Intimate Grand. Great sound and price, they have some others pianos as well. I'm still looking, though. :)

[@MrACangusyoungDC]

​@lucasschaffer948 the Arturia presets are worse than each modell on default. The American Grand and Jazz Uprights are decent and feels good to play because of the nature of emulation.

[@luisfernandoruiz]

pianoteq have nice mid range! is best like my for production and mix, regards, thank you for the comparision!

[@MerriamPianos]

It is a very solid VST plugin - that is for sure! Thanks for tuning in! We appreciate it. :)

[@spartan456]

I would love to see a video comparing Ravenscroft 275 to Pianoteq. The only major drawback to Pianoteq is the price. If you want the ability to modify the tone to the extent demonstrated in this comparison video, you need to at a minimum buy the Standard version, which is $300. While Ravenscroft 275 doesn't let you explicitly position mics in the same way as Pianoteq (as it is still a sampled VST), there is still a very nice arrangement of mic positions to choose from. And, similarly to Pianoteq, there is quite a lot to play around with to completely alter the tonality and voicing of the piano, and you get all of that control for just $200 (sometimes as low as $140 when it goes on sale). This is in my opinion the most impressive aspect. Considering that it is sampled, I was surprised to see it offer as much control as it does. To me, Ravenscroft 275 really feels like the best of both worlds. You get the realistic detail offered by sampled, with the control of a modeled synthesized piano. It would be very interesting to see how these two stack up in terms of customization. I have a feeling it would be far easier to achieve an "apples to apples" comparison with these two.

[@zumadale]

I have both...I rarely...if ever...use Ravenscroft ...the sound and playability of pianoteq is so much better than any sampled piano I have ever used. But...you can listen to someone tell you which one is best...you have to try them yourself. Pianoteq has a fully functional demo...with the exception of a few black keys...you can try. Pianoteq does things a sample could never do...just by virtue of the playability and interaction between keys and strings. Sampled cant take into account all the possible ways the keys are being played...where pianoteq can.

[@spartan456]

@@zumadale See, I'm on the completely other end of that spectrum. I've spent a lot of time with a bunch of VSTs over the months, I've tried lots of them ranging from Keyscape all the way to Garritan CFX and Pianoteq. There was always just something that felt "off" with all of them. Especially many of the sampled ones, but it's funny. For me, I'm interested in the precision offered by a modeled piano, but I really like the presence offered by a sampled library. Keyscape is not that great in my opinion (as far as precision is concerned, it's absolutely a producers wet dream though) but there is no denying that a lot of the other instruments, particularly the uprights and electric pianos, have a very big soundscape. I just love that, I just wish they were far more precise. There was a lot I liked about Pianoteq when I tried it. My favorite feature of all is probably the super simple calibration. I was blown away that it just set an accurate velocity curve for my digital piano after going through the calibration process instead of making me meticulously tweak the curve myself. As impressive as that was, there was still something that just felt "off" about it, and I think it's mostly the "presence", or rather the lack thereof. Pianoteq just sounded very pure and clinical to my ears. It wasn't bad, not by a long shot, it just wasn't _exactly_ what I was looking for. And you know what, that could also be entirely down to the headphones I was kinda trapped into using when I was noodling around with it. I can definitely see why it's so highly regarded though, and I'll probably circle back to it and give it another try soon. What I like most about Ravenscroft is it fills the void for me. I can achieve a lot of the presence offered by sampled libraries, and still have a lot of the similar control as something like Pianoteq. I do admit, it definitely isn't _as_ precise as something like Pianoteq, but the customization of tone in tandem with the presence is what really makes me gravitate towards it. I personally have not had any issues as far as "playability" is concerned, it's very responsive and the mechanical intent from my muscles seems to be translated quite well while playing it, especially when compared to other sampled VSTs. It's not as accurate as what I remember from Pianoteq, but it's a compromise I'm willing to make, as it allows me to have a fair amount of "the best of both worlds."

[@napilopez]

Meanwhile, Pianoteq and Ravenscroft happen to be the only two VSTs I keep returning to. If I only had to keep two piano VSTs, it would be these two. In addition to these two, I've used Garritan, VSL Bleuthner, Embertone, UVI Austrian, Simple Sam, Arturia Piano V, Hammersmith Free, a variety of free VSTs. Just got modern U too. Listened to just about every notable piano VST out there. Ravenscroft and Pianoteq are the ones I keep going back to. I really love the VSL Bleuthner and Modern U, and the Modern U is the most playable sampled VST I've used. But I also just prefer the sound of the Ravenscroft to the Yamaha in Modern U. I will say though that Embertone Lite at $39 is bar none the best bang-for your buck desktop virtual piano. I absolutely love the sound of Simply Sam which is also very affordable, but the requirement for full kontakt negates that for a lot of people.

[@TracingFlares]

demoing right now pianoteq. It could not cut through mixes where the stock logic grand piano and Steinway can. Also this pianoteq sounds thin and at same time muddy at low end.. this is me and i am msking AB comparisons. In the end its the feel and cut through the mix what counts. For now i'll try this addictive keys. Thanks!!!😊

[@MerriamPianos]

You're very welcome! Context of use is certainly an important consideration. Different VSTs will work better in different musical contexts. Thankfully, there are a lot of great options to select between! Best of luck with finding one that works just right in the mix the way you want. :)

[@TracingFlares]

@@MerriamPianos yes absolutely agree .. and i have had some surprises in that regard...

[@jonos138]

I have addictive keys. I got it free with my interface. I also have the demo of Pianoteq. First thing I noticed is AK has no change in tone from playing softly to harder. Just the volume changes. Where as PK the tonal response changes with how hard or soft you play. So for me Pianoteq wins on the realism. I was a bit confused on Pianoteq maybe someone can enlighten me. When you buy Pianoteq. Do you get any pianos with it? Or do you then have to purchase addons to have any piano samples?

[@MerriamPianos]

Hi there! Modartt offers a number of free sample packs to Pianoteq customers that can be acquired via their website. :)

[@tommckeown6970]

I would (and did) choose AK for me. The modern upright is very close to the sound I get from micing up my Yamaha U3. There is just something in the sound of PT that sounds unnatural. It is lacking something, but I can't really say what it is. Maybe it's a lack of richness in the overtones? It just doesn't sound like any of the hundreds of pianos I've played in my career.

[@MerriamPianos]

That is a certainly fair! Pianoteq is a modelling-based engine, which is quite different than sampling-based engines in digital pianos and VST plugins. At the end of the day, it all comes down to a matter of personal preference. Thankfully, there are a lot of great options to choose from! :)

[@Biozene]

Good day, Stubert!

[@zumadale]

Pianoteq is like joining a club...when you're in...you're in...updates and adding instruments is very reasonable.

[@JoeLinux2000]

My advice is to buy the Pro Version when it's on sale and skimp on all the various pianos. The Blunther was my favorite for long time. Many others I never use at all. I am using the Hamburg Steinway now in tandem with the Yamaha DGX CFX.

[@zumadale]

@@JoeLinux2000 Playing with old rock and even new stuff...the Bluthner rules. I layer the tall upright with it and crank the resonance and impedance up a bit.

[@geraldgleeson4191]

Pianoteq summer sale is on at present!

[@JoeLinux2000]

Yes now is the time to buy and usually the sale period is rather short.

[@bernardm3066]

I think the biggest difference is to learn to actually play and mix.

[@MerriamPianos]

There is truth to the notion that "tone is in the fingers" as well as the fact that becoming proficient at mixing and sound design will definitely help you get the most out of VST piano plugins. :)

[@bernardm3066]

@@MerriamPianos Don't get me wrong I didn't want to sound absolute the tools do matter but sometimes (this along with comparing gear) almost feels like a bit of a different hobby than actually playing/producing more close to what an audiophile will do when listening to music and try to get to every nuisance of the sound (which is pretty nice by itself for sure). I think if you pick something that sounds good to you and the UI feels ok you are generally fine as most of the well known libraries are very decent. Besides, if piano is your main instrument you will end up buying a few of them anw... Thanks for the review, cheers.

[@justofernandez1977]

Good!!!!🎉

[@MerriamPianos]

Thank you so much! :)

[@justofernandez1977]

@@MerriamPianos First of all congratulations for your videos. I love them and on many occasions they have helped me. I would like to know if you consider it appropriate your opinion about what could be the most realistic piano vst to make a piano recording (minimalist music) solo? I know it depends on tastes, but I mean a very well sampled. hugs and thank you very much

[@bernardussamuel8944]

The thing that I would note that the size of addictive keys is just smaller than any other sampled piano. Addictive Keys also lightweight too, IMO.

[@EdPin_]

FOCUS. Rick Beato in his early materials has had the same issue. Hand adjusted focus and low complexity pattern shirt please :)

[@jayhollywood.]

16:20

[@MerriamPianos]

:)

[@jt2553]

What is “VST?”

[@TamirOrkobysPiano]

virtual instrument

[@spartan456]

Virtual Studio Technology, which can be a very wide range of different plugins for use in a variety of different software. For example, video editing plugins are typically in the VST format. When you load a color correction plugin into your video editor, it is most likely to be VST, unless it is some weird proprietary format. However, VST is most commonly used in music and sound design. For example, let's say you want to create an EQ for a particular track in a music project you are working on. If you were working with purely analogue equipment, you'd need to pass all of your audio signals into a hardware equalizer, set it yourself, and then feed the output of that into something else. VST plugins provide a similar concept, the difference is you're doing it entirely in a digital space. Instead of sending an analogue signal into a hardware equalizer, you're sending a digital signal created by your computer into a virtual equalizer, and the output of that can be sent to wherever it needs to go. This is of course a very basic example of VST plugins. VST also goes a step further: instruments. These can range from basic synthesizers and oscillators all the way to replicas of famous drum machines and complex sample libraries. These are commonly abbreviated as "VSTi", or "Virtual Studio Technology Instrument". It is a virtual instrument that can be used in an entirely digital space. Instead of having to noodle around on a hardware synthesizer, you can noodle around on a completely virtual one. Instead of having to buy a real Bosendorfer, you can just buy a sample library for a Bosendorfer. VSTi opens a lot of doors for accessibility, and is also quite lucrative. Many years ago, if you wanted to use a Moog synthesizer, you needed to find one and buy one. Now if you want to noodle around with a Moog synthesizer, odds are some company out there has sampled or modeled an entire VSTi around how a particular Moog synthesizer functions and sounds, and they put it up for sale. This is not just limited to synthesizers. Many companies also devote time and money into sampling or modeling entire acoustic instruments, ranging from pianos, guitars, and violins all the way to music boxes and harpsichords. There is some degree of authenticity that just can not be replicated by VSTis, however. And part of that is something that is demonstrated in this very video. A sampled piano is just not the same thing as an acoustic piano, although some of them reach very convincing levels of realism. Modeled pianos offer much more precision and clarity in the tones they are able to produce, but sometimes fall short of samples, however which one is preferable just depends on what kind of sound you are trying to get. The same case applies to synthesizers. Some would argue that there's certain elements that just don't exist with using a virtual Moog synthesizer, and most of that is down to the lack of analogue artifacts. Believe it or not, there are even VST plugins to give your music intentional flaws in quality, which is something that would be quite typical on an analogue setup. For example, there are many tape plugins that give you precise control over the characteristic wow and flutter from recording things onto tape, or even vinyl. Basically, VST and VSTi plugins are designed to take hardware equipment and instruments from the real world, and put them into a digital, virtual environment. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[@spartan456]

One more thing: you might be wondering "what's the difference between a sampled VSTi and a modeled one?" So, a sampled VSTi is one that captures the original sounds of the instrument or device. Using a piano as an example, a team would set up a huge recording arrangement around the piano. From there, they would record every note being played on the piano at a variety of intensities (very soft, soft, loud, louder, etc). They will also capture the sustain and release of each note. Some of them go much further and try to capture the smaller details as well, such as the noises of the hammer action, the noises the keys make as they move up and down, the subtle sound of the damper being applied and release, the sound of the pedal, etc. Once they have all of these recordings, some programming software magic wraps the whole thing up into a convenient VSTi. From there, when you control the VSTi with a digital piano and you very softly press a G, the VSTi goes "alright, I need the very soft audio sample of this particular G in this particular octave", and practically instantaneously that sample is played back. If there are other subtleties, such as key noises, those are played as well. Then, it will fade into the sustain for that particular note, and eventually fade to the release when the key is no longer being pressed. Very good sample libraries are often very large in file size, as they contain thousands if not tens of thousands of tiny, individual audio clips. Some of them even go further, and use techniques of modeling to create sympathetic resonance. A modeled piano VSTi on the other hand is almost always quite small in file size. Many of them do not utilize samples (although some may use samples of imperfections, such as key noises and dampers just to give it a bit more realism). When you press a G on a modeled piano VSTi, the software is going "okay, I need to _make_ something that sounds like a G in this particular octave played at this particular intensity." It doesn't call up an audio clip and play it back. It's creating the needed tone using math and logic. A good way to think about it is, a modeled VSTi is basically a synthesizer. It's generating the tones by using many of the same principles that synthesizers use. These are two distinctly different ways of creating VSTi libraries, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. A sampled VSTi often captures much more "realism". It's the real instrument, being recorded in a real space. But a sampled VSTi is still quite limited. There is just no way to capture the infinite chaos of an acoustic instrument. There will always be some things that just can't be recorded by microphones. If they tried, the library would probably take up terabytes of data. So compromises are made. Sampled VSTis are often less precise as a result. On a real acoustic piano there's extensive variations in tone just based on the way you press a single key. If you strike the same note two times in rapid succession, there's no way it will sound _exactly_ the same on the next repetition. There will be subtle changes in how it sounds, the way it clashes and resonates with everything else. Sampled VSTi's just can't capture all that nuance, so they are often simplified for the sake of getting a usable product. Instead of making people download something that's 2 or 3 terabytes, it's simplified down to a couple hundred gigabytes or less. Modeled on the other hand doesn't have this problem. The whole thing is creating tones from thin air. There are no samples. Modeled has the ability to ensure no two single note repetitions sound _exactly_ the same. Modeled has the ability to replicate that "infinite chaos". But they typically lack the presence of the real deal. This is where sampled VSTis really shine, because they are recordings of the real instrument in a real space. So, really, there is no "better", just "different." Which technology and VSTi you decide to get just depends on the kind of sound and control you need from it. As stated in this video, modeled are usually good ones to go for if you are aiming for a totally solo piano experience. That is to say, you're not trying to mix the piano into something else. The precision they offer guarantees you'll be able to hear and learn to control some of that "infinite chaos" of the acoustic variation. Sampled is usually good to use if you're planning on producing your own music. When the piano is mixed with 5 or 6 other things, the subtleties provided by a modeled VSTi just won't be heard, and the limitations in tonal distinction of a sampled one won't really matter. However, it is worth mentioning that modeled VSTis do offer significantly more control in the tone of the sound. If you really need a soft, gentle piano tone and the only sample VSTi you have is a very hard and bright one, there generally isn't anything you can do to change that, unless that particular sampled VSTi has some controls to let you do that. Modeled VSTis are guaranteed to always give you that kind of control. Okay, now my TED Talk is truly over.

[@JoeLinux2000]

@@spartan456 I give you 5 Stars for knowing what you are talking about. It's obvious to me that you have extensive experience combined with a refined sense of musical taste.

[@spartan456]

@@JoeLinux2000 Well, I wouldn't go that far :), but a lot of people have told me I have an ear for music. I've noodled around with tons of VSTi's over the years and just have a lot of experience with how they work. One more thing I forgot to mention, and this plays into the whole "infinite chaos" thing. On a real acoustic piano, when you play a chord, there is a completely different harmonic interaction occuring there than if you just played each note one after the other. The sounds are all mixed together to create a completely different tone. This is where sampled VSTi's really lose a lot of their nuance. When you play a chord in a sampled VSTi, it's not combining all of those sounds to generate a whole new complex overtone. It's just layering those sounds on top of each other. Modeled VSTi's do not have this problem, since they can generate new overtones on the fly. When you play a chord in a modeled one, it's not simply layering the tones on top of each other. It's mathematically working out what the harmonics of all of that would sound like. Now, there are some sampled VSTi's that actually take elements of modeled VSTi's and try to incorporate them. For example, Native Instruments NOIRE has an entire portion dedicated to modeling overtones and resonance. Compared to other sampled ones, this offers a lot of very interesting nuance. There are modeled VSTi's that are actually somewhat based in samples, but instead of recording every single note, they only record 3rds and 5ths and just use modeling to generate the rest of the notes, extrapolating from the recorded samples. These can sometimes sound BETTER in every way, as they are literally combining the best of both techniques. It all really just depends on _what_ you need a particular VSTi for.

[@assessoroffice7212]

Sir, I like the overall flavor of your songs; the chords, the whole thing; the melody and tone are more jazzy but so dark. It hides secrets in the shadow of a riddle. I can translate it into a vision of a dark hazy landscape at sunrise. Sir, your song is dark and jazzy and cinematic ,Why are you not composing instrumental piano with an orchestra and sounding like your style of music? like the David foster ? You are capable of becoming a composer, especially of movie scores.c , but I don't like the tone of Addictive Keys. It is overyly thin and bright with an electronic feel, unlike Vienna Imperial, which has a body and is purely organic to hear.

[@MerriamPianos]

Hi! Brent from Merriam Music here! Thanks for tuning in! Stu is a brilliant player, improviser and composer. I will certainly pass on the kind words to him! :)

[@TamirOrkobysPiano]

The real piano sample (addictive keys) wins fake computerized piano(teq). Even with the more fake options. Real piano sample wins computer fake piano every day of the week😜

[@zumadale]

Yeah...except a few things...like cost of having a piano tuner come out once a month...thats not excessive for someone who plays daily ....add costs of replacing broken strings...upkeep....humidity and temp control. Digital...however...and you dont have these costs. Not to mention weight of the piano if you move! I'm very happy switching from a real grand piano to pianoteq. I play along with CDs and youtube videos as well as live performances....and no more "out of tune" worries. Pianoteq does an excellent job. It feels like hammers are hitting the strings!

[@TamirOrkobysPiano]

@@zumadale what i meant on the words "Real Piano" is real piano "sample" and not "render" piano which is not a record of real piano. so the sound is not of real life piano. its "fake" computerized piano sound. like "roland" pianos' and pianoteq, arturia v-piano, and so on... even throe the pianoteq is the most "relistic" fake render piano. still it is not a real piano recording. its emulator of a computerized piano.

[@chrisanderson9981]

I used to feel that way 100% till Pianoteq improved, it's come a long way (even though it still has a ways to go, it will still get some of the common complaints in tone). The interaction feels more authentic, expressive and "live" to me with Pianoteq and less like triggering static recordings with sample libraries. That said, I think sample libraries played back sound authentic, richer and obviously more realistic (since it is a real piano you are hearing, obviously). I likely will still use both, cause each has their pros and cons.

[@TamirOrkobysPiano]

@@chrisanderson9981 and if you have to choose?

[@chrisanderson9981]

​@@TamirOrkobysPiano Samples. I just loaded Cinesamples - Piano In Blue, for example. Not without it's faults (eg. some sustain pedal hiss and other quirks). For now, that rich authentic piano character seems to be best captured sonically in sample libraries.