However, if I increase that hammer hardness even to the lowest level that makes the lowest notes at least decent, the midrange and the upper range become unacceptable bright, almost (if not completely) like an harpsichord. How much exactly to increase is a matter of taste and/or mood and/or a matter of "I want to make PTQ sound similar to this particular one piano I've heard", but the default in my opinion is unacceptable. This way, I can achieve a more credible sound in those octaves. Very dramatic increase, making the forte close to the maximum.
I increase the hammer hardness, all of three of them, keeping the relationship between them equal. I tried messing up with settings, and here is what I found. I certainly could not try all the combinations of existing instruments in all "flavors" that the PTQ demo offers, but I tried many. I mean, no real acoustic piano that I have played (at church, friends and teachers houses, piano stores) or heard (in intimate concert settings) is so dull in those octaves.
Try playing any scale starting from one of the lowest notes of the instrument, and compare that with something else (better if it's acoustic, but competing software piano or digital ok). The lowest one is totally unacceptable, then gradually becomes better. The lowest two or three octaves of PTQ sound horribly dull. I'm not talking about something subtle here, I'm talking something major. So I'd be ok with some subtleties being different.
And I am ok with that: they are different thing (even when the software piano is sampled and "pretends" to be a recording, but then it's used differently). Now, in general, I very well hear the difference between an acoustic piano and a software one (even in recordings played from the same speakers/headphones). Phil Best) say that's more responsive than other software pianos. It contains many useful features (such as the "condition" slider) to sound more life-like instead of "computer-perfect-like". I am greatly fascinated by the science behind the way PTQ works. I love how with PTQ I don't have to consult Google for every single thing in the interface (NINJAM, OSD, SF2, SFZ, Channels, VST, LV2 and gazillion others). Looks like all competing products are not really competing for a pianist, just for tinkerers.
I am not an audio engineer and don't want to become one (not even as a hobby). I just play the piano and don't care at all about having a "recording studio" on my fingertips. I really want to like it and buy it, because I feel I need it, but I have this one problem which is stopping me.īefore describing that, let me add that I really love the PTQ software. So this discussion is based with my experience with the evaluation version. I don't own PTQ (at least not yet) because of the following problem.