Here is a decent review of Steinberg Grand 3, which I don't own but I am 
planning on purchasing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0n41QIQ7UU&NR=1

Please make sure you aren't playing this through typical computer 
speakers because you won't hear any difference.

Played through a good system, like my Genelecs, you would be hard pressed 
to tell these are sampled pianos.

And even more so, the playability of these in the hands of a trained 
pianist is what really counts.

IOW they actually PLAY like real pianos when coupled with a professional 
weighted controller like my Roland RD700 or Yamaha KX88.

Listen to the bite of the Steinberg and the darkness of the Ivory.
Also listen to the total lack of jumping from soft samples to loud.
IOW when you strike a key starting soft and then hitting progressively 
louder you do not hear obvious jumps in the samples.

The NI Akoustic is complete garbage BTW.
Hear how thin it sounds....

Now to keep this on topic, Linux has nothing like this and there is no 
keyboard with built in sounds that even comes close to these.

None of these will run under Linux AFAIK.

"flatfish+++" <flatfish@myself.com> wrote in
news:Xns9CFCF03F4E15flatfish@188.40.43.213: 

I forgot one thing, the Steinway D is probably the worst Ivory piano.
But he had to choose the same piano from all 3 companies so it's fair.

The Italian Grand, especially the Jazz version sounds much, much better 
although it's still dark compared to the Steinberg which for my style of 
music (jazz) is great.

flatfish+++ wrote:
> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@myself.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9CFCF03F4E15flatfish@188.40.43.213: 
> 
> I forgot one thing, the Steinway D is probably the worst Ivory piano.
> But he had to choose the same piano from all 3 companies so it's fair.
> 
> The Italian Grand, especially the Jazz version sounds much, much better 
> although it's still dark compared to the Steinberg which for my style of 
> music (jazz) is great.

I'm still looking out for a Mac based virtual Wurlitzer unit.
So far, the only way I could get those sounds is by purchasing an Allen.
They use the same technique of sampling all of the pipes, and then fine 
tuning the virtual pipes thru a laptop using their software, and of 
course using a DSP for other various effects like the size of the 
auditorium and pipe chamber.

GreyCloud wrote:
> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> I forgot one thing, the Steinway D is probably the worst Ivory piano.
>> But he had to choose the same piano from all 3 companies so it's
>> fair. 
>> 
>> The Italian Grand, especially the Jazz version sounds much, much
>> better although it's still dark compared to the Steinberg which for
>> my style of music (jazz) is great.
> 
> I'm still looking out for a Mac based virtual Wurlitzer unit.
> So far, the only way I could get those sounds is by purchasing an
> Allen. They use the same technique of sampling all of the pipes, and
> then fine tuning the virtual pipes thru a laptop using their software,
> and of course using a DSP for other various effects like the size of
> the auditorium and pipe chamber.

Flatfish claims his Roland keyboard is bigger than my keyboard, to make 
up for a little dick.

Not a "toy", here is what the cost effective Roland GW-7 is capable of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKIGHHmreFo

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>> I forgot one thing, the Steinway D is probably the worst Ivory
>>> piano. But he had to choose the same piano from all 3 companies so
>>> it's fair. 
>>> 
>>> The Italian Grand, especially the Jazz version sounds much, much
>>> better although it's still dark compared to the Steinberg which for
>>> my style of music (jazz) is great.
>> 
>> I'm still looking out for a Mac based virtual Wurlitzer unit.
>> So far, the only way I could get those sounds is by purchasing an
>> Allen. They use the same technique of sampling all of the pipes, and
>> then fine tuning the virtual pipes thru a laptop using their
>> software, and of course using a DSP for other various effects like
>> the size of the auditorium and pipe chamber.
> 
> Flatfish claims his Roland keyboard is bigger than my keyboard, to
> make up for a little dick.
> 
> Not a "toy", here is what the cost effective Roland GW-7 is capable
> of: 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKIGHHmreFo

Here is the GW-7's synth and piano capabilities:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYycOvIFfPw&NR

Here is the WK2 doing some mid eastern stuff (I have the hard disk arranger 
version):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51IMyhohtq4

Hence, decent trucks for my midi edits in Rosegarden in Linux.

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> wrote in 
news:Xns9CFDBF392B1Fhpt@62.141.42.78:

> Flatfish claims his Roland keyboard is bigger than my keyboard, to make 
> up for a little dick.

Why I am even bothering with this loser is beyond me.
It's just an example of the typical Linux loon who no matter how far 
fetched and wrong his argument is, will keep on insisting he is right.

It seems HPT has the ability to transfer this behavior to other subjects, 
music in this case, as well.

Sad.

However, I'm bored at the moment so:

Wrong again HPT
I claimed that your keyboard, nor mine, can even approach the sound of a 
program like Ivory.
And my keyboard is bigger (88 weighted keys with hammer action vs 61 
plastic feeling keys of yours), better (double the polyphony and memory) 
and a true professional unit designed for professional use by 
professionals.


> Not a "toy", here is what the cost effective Roland GW-7 is capable of:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKIGHHmreFo

Cost effective in this case = amateur.
There is a reason some keyboards are listed in the "professional 
section" of a given company webstore (mine) and some are listed in the 
"home section" yours. But alas they don't make your's anymore.
Maybe if you hold on to it long enough it might become a piece of 
valuable "vintage gear".
Don't hold your breath though.

Big deal...

I could play Rhapsody in Blue on a Casio Keyboard at the local BestBuy 
and you would be amazed. I know bands that have Yamaha PSR keyboards they 
use for funky sounds. They are so small they have to be gaff taped to the 
stand.
You can make music with anything.
Your point?

BTW why are you obsessed with penis size?
You compare motorcycles and the people riding them to penis's and now you 
are comparing keyboards to penis size?

You are one strang cat HPT.

BTW I though you kill filed me and ran away after your last bitch 
slapping.
You just keep coming back for more no matter how badly you lose.

flatfish+++ pulled this Usenet boner:

> Cost effective in this case = amateur.

You fool!  I do all my music creation with a hex editor!  Perfect sound!

-- 
You're being followed.  Cut out the hanky-panky for a few days.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> flatfish+++ pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> Cost effective in this case = amateur.
> 
> You fool!  I do all my music creation with a hex editor!  Perfect sound!

This is one of my little toys:

http://www.generalmusic.com/img/gem/art/popup/991128.jpg

description at:

http://www.generalmusic.com/prodotti.asp?cod=991128&lingua=eng&frame=ca

It is a hard disk midi arranger, introduced in 1999 for around $1.5k US,
sold for 5 years, was supplanted by model WK2000HD Arranger.  It will
play midi Karaoke files with words, displayed on a television monitor.
Also is able to harmonise in 4 part harmony, one's voice from
microphone.  Playing a midi Karaoke, "Put Your Head on My Shoulders",
one can sound like the Lettermen.  I use my Roland GW-7 as a keyboard
controller for it through midi.

Both it and the Roland patched through midi to my PC are ultimate sound
cards.

Flatfish's rants about "toy", and Casio.  These are not toys.  It is as
though one must spend thousands of dollars for their equipment and
software, so they can have a decent home studio.

I picked up the GW-7 on closeout sale at MusiciansFriend.com for $729 a
year ago with free shipping.  It is a throwback to the Korg i5 concept
to full models i3, i4, same sounds as the professional Juno series but
with a simpler sequencer.  Has analogue controls to modify sounds to
one's fancy preset or on the fly.

Reason for drop in cost is the unit was manufactured in China for
Roland.  If made in Japan, one could easily add $400 to the cost.

Regarding Flatfish's rants on ancient equipment, any decent piece of
music gear is worth keeping.  Back in the 1980's, I gigged with a
venerable King bari-sax.  It was missing lacquer in places, had a few
dents, but the sound was awesome, still have a 33-1/3rd rpm vinyl with
several recordings made in east LA with the band.

Occasionally, one still sees a venerable Rhodes piano in use.

Also in contrast to Flatfish's rants, ownership of so-called higher end
software for a studio's success is less of a selling point than
professional results.  I still occasionally see professional musicians
on stage with worn, old instruments reminiscent of my King bari-sax.
What is more important is the sound produced rather than the appearance.
 Same goes with the studio.

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:

> Regarding Flatfish's rants on ancient equipment, any decent piece of
> music gear is worth keeping.  Back in the 1980's, I gigged with a
> venerable King bari-sax.  It was missing lacquer in places, had a few
> dents, but the sound was awesome, still have a 33-1/3rd rpm vinyl with
> several recordings made in east LA with the band.

I still have my old Roland MT-32 that I bought from a studio musician in
L.A. lonnnng ago.

> What is more important is the sound produced rather than the appearance.

-- 
If you sow your wild oats, hope for a crop failure.

On 2010-01-12, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Regarding Flatfish's rants on ancient equipment, any decent piece of
>> music gear is worth keeping.  Back in the 1980's, I gigged with a
>> venerable King bari-sax.  It was missing lacquer in places, had a few
>> dents, but the sound was awesome, still have a 33-1/3rd rpm vinyl with
>> several recordings made in east LA with the band.
>
> I still have my old Roland MT-32 that I bought from a studio musician in
> L.A. lonnnng ago.

I have an old Korg i3. Nice little machine too. Unfortunately the only
instrument left in the house at the moment. I really need to buy
myself a new drumkit and guitar.

-- 
The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents,
and the second half by our children.
	~ Clarence Darrow

On 2010-01-12, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote:
> flatfish+++ pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Cost effective in this case = amateur.
>
> You fool!  I do all my music creation with a hex editor!  Perfect sound!

I do all my music creation with my anus.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Gregory Shearman pulled this Usenet boner:

> On 2010-01-12, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> flatfish+++ pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> Cost effective in this case = amateur.
>>
>> You fool!  I do all my music creation with a hex editor!  Perfect sound!
>
> I do all my music creation with my anus.

Can you do "Bugler's Holiday"?

-- 
Your love life will be happy and harmonious.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:52:37 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> On 2010-01-12, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> flatfish+++ pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> Cost effective in this case = amateur.
>>
>> You fool!  I do all my music creation with a hex editor!  Perfect
>> sound!
> 
> I do all my music creation with my anus.

In A flat ?



-- 
This machine running Gnu/Linux Mint 8 and posting via Pan.
Get your Free copy NOW!  http://linuxmint.com/

On 2010-01-12, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:52:37 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2010-01-12, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>> flatfish+++ pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> Cost effective in this case = amateur.
>>>
>>> You fool!  I do all my music creation with a hex editor!  Perfect
>>> sound!
>> 
>> I do all my music creation with my anus.
>
> In A flat ?

In F sharp major.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

TomB wrote:
> brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>> High Plains Thumper pulled:
>> 
>>> Regarding Flatfish's rants on ancient equipment, any decent piece
>>> of music gear is worth keeping.  Back in the 1980's, I gigged
>>> with a venerable King bari-sax.  It was missing lacquer in
>>> places, had a few dents, but the sound was awesome, still have a
>>> 33-1/3rd rpm vinyl with several recordings made in east LA with
>>> the band.
>> 
>> I still have my old Roland MT-32 that I bought from a studio
>> musician in L.A. lonnnng ago.
> 
> I have an old Korg i3. Nice little machine too. Unfortunately the
> only instrument left in the house at the moment. I really need to buy
> myself a new drumkit and guitar.

Korg i3 was a top instrument when it first came out, one of the first
professional arrangers.  AFAIK, it had a decent sax sound.

-- 
HPT

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> Regarding Flatfish's rants on ancient equipment, any decent piece
>> of music gear is worth keeping.  Back in the 1980's, I gigged with
>> a venerable King bari-sax.  It was missing lacquer in places, had a
>> few dents, but the sound was awesome, still have a 33-1/3rd rpm
>> vinyl with several recordings made in east LA with the band.
> 
> I still have my old Roland MT-32 that I bought from a studio musician
> in L.A. lonnnng ago.

Interesting ....  Have you tried it through the midi port in Linux?

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:
>> 
>>> Regarding Flatfish's rants on ancient equipment, any decent piece
>>> of music gear is worth keeping.  Back in the 1980's, I gigged with
>>> a venerable King bari-sax.  It was missing lacquer in places, had a
>>> few dents, but the sound was awesome, still have a 33-1/3rd rpm
>>> vinyl with several recordings made in east LA with the band.
>> 
>> I still have my old Roland MT-32 that I bought from a studio musician
>> in L.A. lonnnng ago.
>
> Interesting ....  Have you tried it through the midi port in Linux?

Yes, through an old SB Live! card.  I have done about zero work with music
lately; editing code instead of MIDI/waves too much.

Haven't even used the synthesizers on the SB Live!, either.

I've gone a little bit further with timidity+, cool to be able to dump a
composition to an audio file!

-- 
Your lover will never wish to leave you.

"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> schreef in bericht 
news:slrnhkpo8l.b2j.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
> On 2010-01-12, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> flatfish+++ pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> Cost effective in this case = amateur.
>>
>> You fool!  I do all my music creation with a hex editor!  Perfect sound!
>
> I do all my music creation with my anus.
>
So you are "Chesaar der Anusfluit" (Anus flute) then?
http://cdnec.flurl.com/thumbnails/external/14/7390114.jpg 

On 2010-01-13, Arend van der Berigheid <Arend_is_Berig@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> schreef in bericht 
> news:slrnhkpo8l.b2j.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
>> On 2010-01-12, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>> flatfish+++ pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> Cost effective in this case = amateur.
>>>
>>> You fool!  I do all my music creation with a hex editor!  Perfect sound!
>>
>> I do all my music creation with my anus.
>>
> So you are "Chesaar der Anusfluit" (Anus flute) then?
> http://cdnec.flurl.com/thumbnails/external/14/7390114.jpg 

Of course, any talk of anuses attracts the Clogtroll.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> espoused:
>
>
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>
>>>> I forgot one thing, the Steinway D is probably the worst Ivory
>>>> piano. But he had to choose the same piano from all 3 companies so
>>>> it's fair. 
>>>> 
>>>> The Italian Grand, especially the Jazz version sounds much, much
>>>> better although it's still dark compared to the Steinberg which for
>>>> my style of music (jazz) is great.
>>> 
>>> I'm still looking out for a Mac based virtual Wurlitzer unit.
>>> So far, the only way I could get those sounds is by purchasing an
>>> Allen. They use the same technique of sampling all of the pipes, and
>>> then fine tuning the virtual pipes thru a laptop using their
>>> software, and of course using a DSP for other various effects like
>>> the size of the auditorium and pipe chamber.
>> 
>> Flatfish claims his Roland keyboard is bigger than my keyboard, to
>> make up for a little dick.
>> 
>> Not a "toy", here is what the cost effective Roland GW-7 is capable
>> of: 
>> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKIGHHmreFo
>
> Here is the GW-7's synth and piano capabilities:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYycOvIFfPw&NR
>
> Here is the WK2 doing some mid eastern stuff (I have the hard disk arranger 
> version):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51IMyhohtq4
>
> Hence, decent trucks for my midi edits in Rosegarden in Linux.
>

Synthed pianos are, end the end, flawed by the keyboard action, as well
as the intense complexity of piano sound.

Taught-strung steel has the interesting property of its harmonics going
"sharp" as they get higher.  This is one half of what makes pianos so
fascinating - the other is the hammer-thump, which is responsible for
for 50% of the energy around middle C up to > 90% of the energy at C6
and up.  The top octave of a piano is basically a sinewave with an
incredibly rich hammer-thump.

My kemble upright is now about 1 year old and is wearing in beautifully.
I think I'll get 10 good years out of it then then I'll consider a
baby-grand.

-- 
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk                           |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in.  Own your Own services!       |

Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> espoused:
> On 2010-01-12, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:52:37 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-01-12, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>>> flatfish+++ pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>>
>>>>> Cost effective in this case = amateur.
>>>>
>>>> You fool!  I do all my music creation with a hex editor!  Perfect
>>>> sound!
>>> 
>>> I do all my music creation with my anus.
>>
>> In A flat ?
>
> In F sharp major.
>

You have a talented arse.  I can only manage up to 3 sharps or flats
with mine, so I stop at A major, C minor, and Eb major and F# minor.

-- 
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk                           |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in.  Own your Own services!       |

Mark Kent pulled this Usenet boner:

> Synthed pianos are, end the end, flawed by the keyboard action, as well
> as the intense complexity of piano sound.
>
> Taught-strung steel has the interesting property of its harmonics going
> "sharp" as they get higher.  This is one half of what makes pianos so
> fascinating - the other is the hammer-thump, which is responsible for
> for 50% of the energy around middle C up to > 90% of the energy at C6
> and up.  The top octave of a piano is basically a sinewave with an
> incredibly rich hammer-thump.

A consumer-level Yamaha keyboard I have does a reasonable job of 
replicating that sound variation across octaves.

-- 
You like to form new friendships and make new acquaintances.

Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> espoused:
> Mark Kent pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Synthed pianos are, end the end, flawed by the keyboard action, as well
>> as the intense complexity of piano sound.
>>
>> Taught-strung steel has the interesting property of its harmonics going
>> "sharp" as they get higher.  This is one half of what makes pianos so
>> fascinating - the other is the hammer-thump, which is responsible for
>> for 50% of the energy around middle C up to > 90% of the energy at C6
>> and up.  The top octave of a piano is basically a sinewave with an
>> incredibly rich hammer-thump.
>
> A consumer-level Yamaha keyboard I have does a reasonable job of 
> replicating that sound variation across octaves.
>

Yeah, I've got an old Clavinova and a professional quality portable
yamaha.  They're very good for what they are, and the portable (couple
of years old) even has the weighting of the key change as you move up
the octaves, but even so, when I put it side by side with the real
piano, it's just not close.  

There are other issues around the differing ADSRs for each harmonic
(they're not the same), and the harmonic content of the hammer-thump
itself which are well beyond currently technology to replicate, let
alone the actual feel of the keyboard/hammers etc. when you're playing.

As you say, they're pretty good, though.

-- 
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk                           |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in.  Own your Own services!       |

Mark Kent wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom espoused:
>> Mark Kent pulled:
>>
>>> Synthed pianos are, end the end, flawed by the keyboard action, as well
>>> as the intense complexity of piano sound.
>>>
>>> Taught-strung steel has the interesting property of its harmonics going
>>> "sharp" as they get higher.  This is one half of what makes pianos so
>>> fascinating - the other is the hammer-thump, which is responsible for
>>> for 50% of the energy around middle C up to > 90% of the energy at C6
>>> and up.  The top octave of a piano is basically a sinewave with an
>>> incredibly rich hammer-thump.
>>
>> A consumer-level Yamaha keyboard I have does a reasonable job of 
>> replicating that sound variation across octaves.
> 
> Yeah, I've got an old Clavinova and a professional quality portable
> yamaha.  They're very good for what they are, and the portable (couple
> of years old) even has the weighting of the key change as you move up
> the octaves, but even so, when I put it side by side with the real
> piano, it's just not close.  
> 
> There are other issues around the differing ADSRs for each harmonic
> (they're not the same), and the harmonic content of the hammer-thump
> itself which are well beyond currently technology to replicate, let
> alone the actual feel of the keyboard/hammers etc. when you're playing.
> 
> As you say, they're pretty good, though.

If you will note, many a piano musician on stage will be using an
acoustic piano, IMO most of the time it is a Steinway grand, although
I've seen others.

Backup music for a singer, the digital stuff does a decent job IMO.
There, the music is not the central focal point but the singer.  The
average ear cannot distinguish the difference.

The digital stuff is getting better.  The GEM WK2HD arranger makes the
blip from A to B, which is common among saxes.  because in the fingering
one has to flip from the index to middle finger.  There is a technique
to playing a decent wind instrument on an electronic keyboard.

One detaches the notes slightly, to simulate tonguing, and putting
slight accents on the notes.  (Having played sax helps.)  Thus, one can
tell whether the keyboardist is also a wind instrument player or a
keyboardist.

The keyboardist without wind instrument experience will sound cold,
lacking proper wind instrument expression.  Result will sound more
electronic than live.

[OT] Oh, and I must admit I got a kick out of Flatfish's rant prior to
plonking him.  He claimed I used 1980's gear, which typically being
Flatfish is an outright lie.  The GEM WK2HD came out in 1999, was sold
until 2004.  The Roland GW-7 came out in 2005, sold until 2009, although
you can still find a few in music stores.

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom espoused:
>>> Mark Kent pulled:
>>>
>>>> Synthed pianos are, end the end, flawed by the keyboard action, as well
>>>> as the intense complexity of piano sound.
>>>>
>>>> Taught-strung steel has the interesting property of its harmonics going
>>>> "sharp" as they get higher.  This is one half of what makes pianos so
>>>> fascinating - the other is the hammer-thump, which is responsible for
>>>> for 50% of the energy around middle C up to > 90% of the energy at C6
>>>> and up.  The top octave of a piano is basically a sinewave with an
>>>> incredibly rich hammer-thump.
>>>
>>> A consumer-level Yamaha keyboard I have does a reasonable job of 
>>> replicating that sound variation across octaves.
>> 
>> Yeah, I've got an old Clavinova and a professional quality portable
>> yamaha.  They're very good for what they are, and the portable (couple
>> of years old) even has the weighting of the key change as you move up
>> the octaves, but even so, when I put it side by side with the real
>> piano, it's just not close.  
>> 
>> There are other issues around the differing ADSRs for each harmonic
>> (they're not the same), and the harmonic content of the hammer-thump
>> itself which are well beyond currently technology to replicate, let
>> alone the actual feel of the keyboard/hammers etc. when you're playing.
>> 
>> As you say, they're pretty good, though.
>
> If you will note, many a piano musician on stage will be using an
> acoustic piano, IMO most of the time it is a Steinway grand, although
> I've seen others.

Yes, I do watch them.  The Steinway grand remains my personal favourite,
and is certainly the choice of many a soloist.  I'm planning to attend
at least a couple of the BBC proms again this year, and will try to keep
a tally for interest.

>
> Backup music for a singer, the digital stuff does a decent job IMO.
> There, the music is not the central focal point but the singer.  The
> average ear cannot distinguish the difference.

And anyway, for backing, it probably doesn't matter that much anyway.
It's still difficult to get some of the piano dynamics on electrics,
though, like playing very fast and very quietly, which acoustics will do
with ease (well, some ease, it's actually quite difficult, but it's
possible), but electrics usually struggle, but backing parts are usually
leisurely anyway, so not a problem.

>
> The digital stuff is getting better.  The GEM WK2HD arranger makes the
> blip from A to B, which is common among saxes.  because in the fingering
> one has to flip from the index to middle finger.  There is a technique
> to playing a decent wind instrument on an electronic keyboard.
>
> One detaches the notes slightly, to simulate tonguing, and putting
> slight accents on the notes.  (Having played sax helps.)  Thus, one can
> tell whether the keyboardist is also a wind instrument player or a
> keyboardist.
>
> The keyboardist without wind instrument experience will sound cold,
> lacking proper wind instrument expression.  Result will sound more
> electronic than live.

I played the Clarinet for a few years as a schoolboy - never
particularly talented, I would add, although I could play in-tune and
read the music well enough.  I agree wholeheartedly that, even with my
limited woodwind experience, a keyboard isn't the ideal interface for a
wind sound.

>
> [OT] Oh, and I must admit I got a kick out of Flatfish's rant prior to
> plonking him.  He claimed I used 1980's gear, which typically being
> Flatfish is an outright lie.  The GEM WK2HD came out in 1999, was sold
> until 2004.  The Roland GW-7 came out in 2005, sold until 2009, although
> you can still find a few in music stores.
>

Ah, I never believe anything he says anyway.

-- 
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk                           |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in.  Own your Own services!       |

In article <3ku327-un4.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
 Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Synthed pianos are, end the end, flawed by the keyboard action, as well
> as the intense complexity of piano sound.
> 
> Taught-strung steel has the interesting property of its harmonics going
> "sharp" as they get higher.  This is one half of what makes pianos so
> fascinating - the other is the hammer-thump, which is responsible for
> for 50% of the energy around middle C up to > 90% of the energy at C6
> and up.  The top octave of a piano is basically a sinewave with an
> incredibly rich hammer-thump.

Unfortunately, there is a shortage of people to maintain pianos, which 
is becoming a serious problem:

   <http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/essay.htm>



-- 
--Tim Smith

Verily I say unto thee, that High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
> simulate tonguing

Disgusting.

:)

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "Proprietary licenses, the crack cocaine of software finance."
|  - Matt Asay, CNET
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 01:34:38 up 68 days, 11:56,  4 users,  load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.04

Homer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
>
>> simulate tonguing
> 
> Disgusting.
> 
> :)

Ugh, no, you'll get the clogtrog and flatfish excited.  :-p

-- 
HPT

Mark Kent wrote:
> High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> espoused:
>
>> If you will note, many a piano musician on stage will be using an
>> acoustic piano, IMO most of the time it is a Steinway grand, although
>> I've seen others.
> 
> Yes, I do watch them.  The Steinway grand remains my personal favourite,
> and is certainly the choice of many a soloist.  I'm planning to attend
> at least a couple of the BBC proms again this year, and will try to keep
> a tally for interest.

I've seen Yamaha used on stage.  Some claim that Fazioli is the best,
and there appears to be a following with Kemble (but I thing more so in
Europe than US).

>> Backup music for a singer, the digital stuff does a decent job IMO.
>> There, the music is not the central focal point but the singer.  The
>> average ear cannot distinguish the difference.
> 
> And anyway, for backing, it probably doesn't matter that much anyway.
> It's still difficult to get some of the piano dynamics on electrics,
> though, like playing very fast and very quietly, which acoustics will do
> with ease (well, some ease, it's actually quite difficult, but it's
> possible), but electrics usually struggle, but backing parts are usually
> leisurely anyway, so not a problem.

Modern digital age with keyboard microprocessors, sound is getting more
realistic except perhaps for the most discerning ear.  With a
countermelody solo with singer in the foreground, sometimes for greater
clarity a real instrumentalist with genuine instrument will be employed.

Electronics are getting quite good though.  Overseas, except for one
night club in Naha, Okinawa, the karaoke systems used in most the
karaoke restaurants used midi, more realistic than home type units like
the Magic Sing.  But the Magic Sing still does an adequate job of
backing, when plugged into a decent home theatre system.

>> The digital stuff is getting better.  The GEM WK2HD arranger makes the
>> blip from A to B, which is common among saxes.  because in the fingering
>> one has to flip from the index to middle finger.  There is a technique
>> to playing a decent wind instrument on an electronic keyboard.
>>
>> One detaches the notes slightly, to simulate tonguing, and putting
>> slight accents on the notes.  (Having played sax helps.)  Thus, one can
>> tell whether the keyboardist is also a wind instrument player or a
>> keyboardist.
>>
>> The keyboardist without wind instrument experience will sound cold,
>> lacking proper wind instrument expression.  Result will sound more
>> electronic than live.
> 
> I played the Clarinet for a few years as a schoolboy - never
> particularly talented, I would add, although I could play in-tune and
> read the music well enough.  I agree wholeheartedly that, even with my
> limited woodwind experience, a keyboard isn't the ideal interface for a
> wind sound.

Clarinet is my primary instrument, sax second.  Using the keyboard
taught me jazz improvisation.  It is a lot easier to see chords through
a keyboard than fingering, which is more abstract.  Example, "Girl from
Ipanema" is in key of F, but ala Jobim uses a lot of diminished 7, 6th
chords, minor 7th, etc.  It is a lot easier to see the Db or F# scale
and related chords on the keyboard than sax.

>> [OT] Oh, and I must admit I got a kick out of Flatfish's rant prior to
>> plonking him.  He claimed I used 1980's gear, which typically being
>> Flatfish is an outright lie.  The GEM WK2HD came out in 1999, was sold
>> until 2004.  The Roland GW-7 came out in 2005, sold until 2009, although
>> you can still find a few in music stores.
> 
> Ah, I never believe anything he says anyway.

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:

> Mark Kent wrote:
>
> <suhnip>
>
> Modern digital age with keyboard microprocessors, sound is getting more
> realistic except perhaps for the most discerning ear.  With a
> countermelody solo with singer in the foreground, sometimes for greater
> clarity a real instrumentalist with genuine instrument will be employed.

I've never cared much about realism, all though it can be a bragging point.

I like the differences from real sounds.

-- 
Your talents will be recognized and suitably rewarded.

"Chris Ahlstrom", thou big-nosed natural philosopher. Thou has no more
brain than I have in mine elbows. Ye spritzed:

> I've never cared much about realism, all though it can be a bragging
> point.

Yes, a bragging point.

Chris Ahlstrom; "HEY, LOOK, MOM! A BRICK FELL OFF THE TOP OF A WALL AND 
CRATERED MY HEAD!"

Chris Ahlstrom's Mother: "Was there any blood, son?"

Chris Ahlstrom: "YEAH, MA! GALLONS OF IT!"

Chris Ahlstrom Mother: "URGH! Don't be so realistic!"

Chris Ahlstrom: "Sorry, Ma! I imagined it!"

Emergency Room Physician: "I'm sorry, Mrs Ahlstrom. Chris didn't make it."

Chris Ahlstrom Mother: "URGH! Don't be so realistic!"

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
news:hisdpm$4v3$3@news.eternal-september.org...
> High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> <suhnip>
>>
>> Modern digital age with keyboard microprocessors, sound is getting more
>> realistic except perhaps for the most discerning ear.  With a
>> countermelody solo with singer in the foreground, sometimes for greater
>> clarity a real instrumentalist with genuine instrument will be employed.
>
> I've never cared much about realism, all though it can be a bragging 
> point.
>
> I like the differences from real sounds.

I've always thought that it should be based on what makes the *best* sound. 
(Although that is highly subjective.)

The fact is that pianos are mechanical devices that have been around for 
100's of years. And being mechanical devices they have certain limitations 
and imperfections because of their mechanical nature. Synthesized sounds can 
be much more *pure* than sounds made from mechanical devices.

Take the issue with trying to reproduce the subtle sound of the piano hammer 
hitting the strings. This is caused by the necessary mechanical design used 
when building a physical piano. It's simply interesting that a synthesized 
sound can be extremely *pure* but a lot of work and effort is done in order 
to artificially add "imperfections" that are found in a real piano.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>> 
>> <suhnip> Modern digital age with keyboard microprocessors, sound is
>> getting more realistic except perhaps for the most discerning ear.
>> With a countermelody solo with singer in the foreground, sometimes
>> for greater clarity a real instrumentalist with genuine instrument
>> will be employed.
> 
> I've never cared much about realism, all though it can be a bragging
> point. I like the differences from real sounds.

I don't know the model of it, but sometimes one hears an earlier drum
machine from the '80s being used.  It definitely has an electronic sound
but is classic, for the same reason you mention.  It is the high hat
that has more of a hiss to it than the ring of the real thing.

-- 
HPT

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
> news:hisdpm$4v3$3@news.eternal-september.org...
>> High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>> <suhnip>
>>>
>>> Modern digital age with keyboard microprocessors, sound is getting more
>>> realistic except perhaps for the most discerning ear.  With a
>>> countermelody solo with singer in the foreground, sometimes for greater
>>> clarity a real instrumentalist with genuine instrument will be employed.
>>
>> I've never cared much about realism, all though it can be a bragging 
>> point.
>>
>> I like the differences from real sounds.
>
> I've always thought that it should be based on what makes the *best* sound. 
> (Although that is highly subjective.)
>
> The fact is that pianos are mechanical devices that have been around for 
> 100's of years. And being mechanical devices they have certain limitations 
> and imperfections because of their mechanical nature. Synthesized sounds can 
> be much more *pure* than sounds made from mechanical devices.

Some of the nicest sounds you'll ever hear are the fat sounds of analog
gear.

Here's a few links to some old gear that I never got a chance to buy:

   http://robosynth.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html
   
   My Paia Stringz 'n Thingz / Organtua keyboard is a great sound
   generating source. Sure would be nice to be able to process those sounds
   through some voltage controlled filters and amplifiers, with MIDI and
   some other stuff thrown in for good measure, right? The Chameleon was
   born!

   http://www.sonicstate.com/synth_reviews/paia_organtua.cfm

   Got given one of these. Poor organ sounds, badly built, usually too
   expensive, unreliable and totally pointless. Buy a Hammond if you need an
   organ, not one of these. Paia stuff is just rubbish. Very few
   'enthusiasts' actually have the skill to make a quality, professional job
   of it. They are normally in a hurry and make a hash instead. I love the
   quality of the soldering! The sounds are predictibly bad. Transistor
   sounding. 

   [Got a low rating, by the way, which I agree with.]

   http://www.sonicstate.com/synth/paia_organtua.cfm

   Another kit I thoroughly enjoyed building in the early eighties.
   Construction was a whiz, the instructions simple and clear.

   The unit was basically an organ using top octave technology. I remember
   some kind of keyboard split but with only 37 notes to work with, it did
   not leave much wiggle room!

   The unit was great for simple organ sounds and John Simonton seemed to
   design it as a starting point for using it with external modules. There
   were trigger and gate outputs for interfacing with modular synths and
   effects. 

> Take the issue with trying to reproduce the subtle sound of the piano hammer 
> hitting the strings. This is caused by the necessary mechanical design used 
> when building a physical piano. It's simply interesting that a synthesized 
> sound can be extremely *pure* but a lot of work and effort is done in order 
> to artificially add "imperfections" that are found in a real piano.

Nah, just make a bunch of samples for each key and randomly use them when
the key is struck.  Memory?  No problem!  :-D

-- 
"What's this?  Trix?  Aunt!  Trix?  You?  You're after the prize!  What
is it?"  He picked up the box and studied the back.  "A glow-in-the-dark
squid!  Have you got it out of there yet?"  He tilted the box, angling the
little colored balls of cereal so as to see the bottom, and nearly spilling
them onto the table top.  "Here it is!"  He hauled out a little cream-colored,
glitter-sprinkled squid, three-inches long and made out of rubbery plastic.
		-- James P. Blaylock, "The Last Coin"

High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:
>> 
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> 
>>> <suhnip> Modern digital age with keyboard microprocessors, sound is
>>> getting more realistic except perhaps for the most discerning ear.
>>> With a countermelody solo with singer in the foreground, sometimes
>>> for greater clarity a real instrumentalist with genuine instrument
>>> will be employed.
>> 
>> I've never cared much about realism, all though it can be a bragging
>> point. I like the differences from real sounds.
>
> I don't know the model of it, but sometimes one hears an earlier drum
> machine from the '80s being used.  It definitely has an electronic sound
> but is classic, for the same reason you mention.  It is the high hat
> that has more of a hiss to it than the ring of the real thing.

Ever try driving a keyboard beyond the usual range?  Set it to the highest
octave, then set the pitch bend on full.  

-- 
You will be aided greatly by a person whom you thought to be unimportant.

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
news:hisro4$msm$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>> news:hisdpm$4v3$3@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <suhnip>
>>>>
>>>> Modern digital age with keyboard microprocessors, sound is getting more
>>>> realistic except perhaps for the most discerning ear.  With a
>>>> countermelody solo with singer in the foreground, sometimes for greater
>>>> clarity a real instrumentalist with genuine instrument will be 
>>>> employed.
>>>
>>> I've never cared much about realism, all though it can be a bragging
>>> point.
>>>
>>> I like the differences from real sounds.
>>
>> I've always thought that it should be based on what makes the *best* 
>> sound.
>> (Although that is highly subjective.)
>>
>> The fact is that pianos are mechanical devices that have been around for
>> 100's of years. And being mechanical devices they have certain 
>> limitations
>> and imperfections because of their mechanical nature. Synthesized sounds 
>> can
>> be much more *pure* than sounds made from mechanical devices.
>
> Some of the nicest sounds you'll ever hear are the fat sounds of analog
> gear.
>
> Here's a few links to some old gear that I never got a chance to buy:

 (Snip - several classic keyboards/synths)

Long story short - Parents made me take piano lessons as a really young kid. 
Finally stopped and never had the desire to play again. Do have a mid-grade 
Yamaha keyboard at home (like the USB midi) but I don't really play it. 
Don't play hocket either which I did as a kid.

But I understand what you say about "analog gear" - I was very into stereo 
equipment before I got married so I'm familiar with this. Back then most 
audio equipment was analog. A friend at work is crazy into high-end analog 
audio equipment. Check out the "vintage electronics" on Ebay sometime. It's 
kinda cool because I see all this equipment that I drooled over as a kid. 
The prices for some of this stuff can be crazy too.

   http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=380197901809

   http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180455383195

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> High Plains Thumper pulled:
> 
>> I don't know the model of it, but sometimes one hears an earlier drum
>> machine from the '80s being used.  It definitely has an electronic
>> sound but is classic, for the same reason you mention.  It is the high
>> hat that has more of a hiss to it than the ring of the real thing.
> 
> Ever try driving a keyboard beyond the usual range?  Set it to the
> highest octave, then set the pitch bend on full.

I never was a fan for chipmunk sax sounds.  Bari sax on the Roland GW-7 in
falsetto sounds good, though.

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper pulled this Usenet boner:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper pulled:
>> 
>>> I don't know the model of it, but sometimes one hears an earlier drum
>>> machine from the '80s being used.  It definitely has an electronic
>>> sound but is classic, for the same reason you mention.  It is the high
>>> hat that has more of a hiss to it than the ring of the real thing.
>> 
>> Ever try driving a keyboard beyond the usual range?  Set it to the
>> highest octave, then set the pitch bend on full.
>
> I never was a fan for chipmunk sax sounds.  Bari sax on the Roland GW-7 in
> falsetto sounds good, though.

Actually, at the very high end you could hear the modulation components of
the notes!

-- 
Sheriff Chameleotoptor sighed with an air of weary sadness, and then
turned to Doppelgutt and said 'The Senator must really have been on a
bender this time -- he left a party in Cleveland, Ohio, at 11:30 last
night, and they found his car this morning in the smokestack of a British
aircraft carrier in the Formosa Straits.'
		-- Grand Panjandrum's Special Award, 1985 Bulwer-Lytton
		   bad fiction contest.

High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> espoused:
>>
>>> If you will note, many a piano musician on stage will be using an
>>> acoustic piano, IMO most of the time it is a Steinway grand, although
>>> I've seen others.
>> 
>> Yes, I do watch them.  The Steinway grand remains my personal favourite,
>> and is certainly the choice of many a soloist.  I'm planning to attend
>> at least a couple of the BBC proms again this year, and will try to keep
>> a tally for interest.
>
> I've seen Yamaha used on stage.  Some claim that Fazioli is the best,
> and there appears to be a following with Kemble (but I thing more so in
> Europe than US).

I've got a Kemble upright which I'm rather attached two, it's a couple
of years old, and very nice.  Less harsh than Japanese pianos, in my
view, and the action is smoothing up nicely now.

>
>>> Backup music for a singer, the digital stuff does a decent job IMO.
>>> There, the music is not the central focal point but the singer.  The
>>> average ear cannot distinguish the difference.
>> 
>> And anyway, for backing, it probably doesn't matter that much anyway.
>> It's still difficult to get some of the piano dynamics on electrics,
>> though, like playing very fast and very quietly, which acoustics will do
>> with ease (well, some ease, it's actually quite difficult, but it's
>> possible), but electrics usually struggle, but backing parts are usually
>> leisurely anyway, so not a problem.
>
> Modern digital age with keyboard microprocessors, sound is getting more
> realistic except perhaps for the most discerning ear.  With a
> countermelody solo with singer in the foreground, sometimes for greater
> clarity a real instrumentalist with genuine instrument will be employed.

Counterpoint is a fascinating style, and still a superior method for
choral music, in my view, at least if you have a sufficiently talented
choir, anyway.

>
> Electronics are getting quite good though.  Overseas, except for one
> night club in Naha, Okinawa, the karaoke systems used in most the
> karaoke restaurants used midi, more realistic than home type units like
> the Magic Sing.  But the Magic Sing still does an adequate job of
> backing, when plugged into a decent home theatre system.



>
>>> The digital stuff is getting better.  The GEM WK2HD arranger makes the
>>> blip from A to B, which is common among saxes.  because in the fingering
>>> one has to flip from the index to middle finger.  There is a technique
>>> to playing a decent wind instrument on an electronic keyboard.
>>>
>>> One detaches the notes slightly, to simulate tonguing, and putting
>>> slight accents on the notes.  (Having played sax helps.)  Thus, one can
>>> tell whether the keyboardist is also a wind instrument player or a
>>> keyboardist.
>>>
>>> The keyboardist without wind instrument experience will sound cold,
>>> lacking proper wind instrument expression.  Result will sound more
>>> electronic than live.
>> 
>> I played the Clarinet for a few years as a schoolboy - never
>> particularly talented, I would add, although I could play in-tune and
>> read the music well enough.  I agree wholeheartedly that, even with my
>> limited woodwind experience, a keyboard isn't the ideal interface for a
>> wind sound.
>
> Clarinet is my primary instrument, sax second.  Using the keyboard
> taught me jazz improvisation.  It is a lot easier to see chords through
> a keyboard than fingering, which is more abstract.  Example, "Girl from
> Ipanema" is in key of F, but ala Jobim uses a lot of diminished 7, 6th
> chords, minor 7th, etc.  It is a lot easier to see the Db or F# scale
> and related chords on the keyboard than sax.

The Piano keyboard is wonderfully logical, unlike fingering for many wind
instruments.  Also, unlike most stringed instruments, there's no
particular pain in playing in, say, Eb, which is a bit of a pig on a
guitar or violin, although really talented players would never play an
open string anyway :-).

What's perhaps as difficult is learning to read music in keys with many
sharps or flats, as it needs an instant mental translation between the
notes on the stave, all sharps and flats plus any additional info like
the bb or X markings into a hand-shape.

Still, all good fun!

-- 
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk                           |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in.  Own your Own services!       |