Chopin Prelude Op.28/4 Acoustic Or Digital?

So the only thing I understood is that one goes into total confusion comparing the various tracks, and well done Simone you camouflaged everything very well! anyway in my opinion the only acoustic tracks are the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th

How many did I get right?

Very interesting test.

I should preface, supermarket headphones.

Analog tracks: 1, 6, 9, with some doubt... but if you had also let me hear the crescendo, I think I would have had a clearer idea... on the pianissimo chords it camouflages better.

Dear friends, the acoustic tracks are not retouched; just like in the other post, they are taken, cut, and uploaded—certainly digital ones. As much as possible, we try to disguise them to make them sound acoustic, otherwise what kind of game is it? What I mean by this is that even the bass chords in the acoustic tracks are original, not dynamically manipulated, not equalized; nothing has been touched!

Listen carefully, spend time on each track, concentrate, and try to discover any digital flaws. Of course, for some, it is truly difficult, I am aware of that; otherwise, we wouldn't have opened this test with which I really want to demonstrate that for some libraries it is difficult to recognize them even if we have been warned of a probable digital sample, let alone without warning.

Goodness, I really thought it would be simpler... And yet, I listened to many digital pianos before purchasing mine...!

Anyway:

1 acoustic.

2 digital

3 acoust

4 digit

5 acoust

6 digit

7 digit

8 digit

9 acoust

10 digit

I hope that, later, you will want to give us a "course" on how you manipulated the digital sounds; there are flaws I expected to find, and instead...!

what a confusion..

1 needle

2 dig

3 dig

4 dig

5 needle

6 dig

7 needle

8 dig

9 dig

10 needle

1 acust

2 digit

3 acust

4 digit

5 acust

6 digit

7 acustic

8 digit

9 acust

10 digit

No one passed the test for this one either. As in the previous one, there was only one acoustic instrument present, but unlike the first test, here you all correctly guessed the acoustic one, which was number 5.

I will list the samples as in the other test + statistics.

1 - EastWest Bechstein 24 bit Combination of 3 perspectives

2 - Imperfect samples Fazioli 24 bit combination of 3 perspectives

3 - Garritan Authorized Steinway - Basic 16bit - Under the lid perspective

4 - Native instruments Alicia Keys Yamaha C3

5 - Acoustic - Video link:

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

6 - Garritan Authorized Steinway 24 bit, classic perspective

7 - Acoustic Samples Kawai EX 16 bit

8 - Galaxy II Vienna Grand Bosendorfer 16bit + Addition of mechanical noises

9 - EastWest Quantum Leap Pianos Full - Steinway 24 bit, combination of 3 perspectives + addition of mechanical noises

10 - Pleyel 1929 16 bit

Statistics, even if on a very small sample of participants:

1. Acoustic 100% - Digital 0%

2. Acoustic 0% - Digital 100%

3. Acoustic 75% - Digital 25%

4. Acoustic 0% - Digital 100%

5. Acoustic 100% - Digital 0%

6. Acoustic 25% - Digital 75%

7. Acoustic 50% - Digital 50%

8. Acoustic 0% - Digital 100%

9. Acoustic 50% - Digital 50%

10. Acoustic 25% - Digital 75%

CromaDiBrera wrote:

I hope that, later on, you will want to give us a "course" on how you manipulated the digital sounds; there are flaws I expected to find, and instead...!

Yes, I think it would be interesting but quite unfeasible. In this case, it is not about explaining to someone how to use software, but describing sonic sensations... Every sample, among other things, possesses its own particularity and was captured in a certain way with equipment chosen based on the needs of the house; therefore, it is not guaranteed that a procedure or plugins used to improve the performance of one sample must also be valid for another.

What can be done is to explain the capture techniques and talk a bit about analog/digital conversion. Certainly, knowing what tools you are working with helps in obtaining better results. It would also be interesting to talk about the techniques adopted by library producers to compensate for certain capture issues in order to make the sample as similar as possible to the acoustic sound...

Even here I give my very personal, subjective opinion (is it the PC's fault? the earphones? the time of day? the mood? who knows).

Even upon re-listening, and even watching the video, I have the impression that that acoustic [instrument] has a non-acoustic, unnatural sound, with a preponderant nasal component.

Rather, I was positively struck, just like the first time I heard about them, by the sounds of the Eastwest library, which are very realistic.

A bit of a stupid test

it's banal that with 180 GB of samples, the result on a track that only has chords with the left hand and two notes with the right hand makes it impossible to perceive differences compared to an mp3 of an acoustic...

http://www.soundsonline.com/Pianos

the demos sound so small ....almost passable but there is still a long way to go....

Not to mention the differences in playing on a real acoustic....

PS velocity issue...you already have a keyboard that doesn't record all velocities, you only have 18 layers.....naaaa we are still very far away

tgdigit wrote:

Even here, I'm giving my very personal, subjective opinion (is it the fault of the PC? the earphones? the time? the mood? who knows).

Even upon re-listening, even while watching the video, I have the impression that the acoustic [instrument] has a non-acoustic, unnatural sound, with a preponderant nasal component.

Rather, I was positively struck, just like the first time I heard about them, by the sounds of the Eastwest library, which are very realistic.

It's the fault of the equipment used for the recording. Certainly of questionable quality; even the mastering doesn't seem to have been done with great competence to me.

stuyvesaint wrote:

A bit of a stupid test

Mah... It seems easy to say now, without having tried it.

stuyvesaint wrote:

the demos sound so small ....almost passable but there is still a long way to go....

PS velocity issue... you already have a keyboard that doesn't register all velocities plus you only have 18 layers.....naaaa we are still very far away

Look, a large part of those demos are made with a single microphone setup and without post-manipulations. If you export and work in post-production with the sample, the keyboard no longer has anything to do with it and the velocities are 127; I have the EW and the sound is much more realistic when you work on it AFTER (that's why, among other things, I didn't recognize them, even if you might assume otherwise).

The purpose of these libraries is by no means to replace a real piano by playing them with a keyboard.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Well... It seems convenient for him to say that now, without having tried it.

I agree with you Croma!

@stuyvesaint

This is not the first time I have read these outbursts of his and now, even after several reports, I find myself forced to intervene. Phrases like "A bit of a stupid test" do not offend me, since I am the one who did it, but rather the people who requested it; I therefore ask you to moderate your language and to interact with members in a more friendly and respectful manner instead of the excessive use of this self-importance of yours. Such attitudes, besides not being welcome by other members who would like to have fun and exchange opinions in a calm, polite, and non-aggressive way, do not even give a good image of the forum to those who have just joined. Respect for Netiquette or, more generally, observance of the rules of Etiquette is always appreciated within a community where, even if virtually, social relationships are established among members; therefore, I invite you to adhere to such rules.

I come to respond to the rest of your intervention.

This simple game was born precisely with the idea of demonstrating with facts that assertions not supported by facts can often prove to be wrong (as the test has indeed demonstrated! This is why I find myself in perfect agreement with Croma who, in rhyme to his unfortunate outburst, replies: "It seems convenient for him to say that now").

I would like to add that most of the people who participated in the test are not part of the "unwary" group; many are composers, others pianists, and I believe I understood that Carlos is an orchestral conductor; I therefore believe that their experience regarding music and sounds is undeniable.

Moving on... Since samples exploit the recording of every single note, when playing chords on the left with the sustain pedal depressed, sympathetic vibration partials should develop in an acoustic instrument, something that certainly cannot happen in a library. I therefore believe it is easier to catch the typical nuances of digital on a piece of this type than on a piece full of notes at a sustained speed where even on an acoustic instrument there would not be enough time for these partials to develop; and the tests carried out in the other post demonstrate this as well (as you can see, I don't just talk, but I always refer to experiments that prove my theses; if you then want to deny even the evidence, then it is obvious that there can be no dialogue between us... I like to believe in things I touch with my hands and that I demonstrate, not in chatter).

Speaking of velocity, it seems to me that you are very interested in the 18 sampling levels in terms of amplitude, whereas I am much more interested in them as a variation of timbre. The 18 sampled levels are then spread over 127 levels (of volume) and excuse me, but if 18 amplitude levels seem few to me (but they are then amplified to cover all 127 velocity levels), in terms of timbre variation they do not seem few at all to me.

The keyboard... You are absolutely right about what you say! But where do we put the post-production in which I have all 127 levels to manage??

Regards

TheSimon wrote:

I agree with you, Croma!

n

@stuyvesaint

It is not the first time I read these outputs of his and now, even after several reports, I find myself forced to intervene. Phrases like "A bit stupid test" annoy me, since I am the one who did it, but the people who requested it instead; therefore, I ask you to moderate the li

http://www.garritan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105&Itemid=55

the demo of Chopin's Scherzo was played by Yundi, the winner, after years that the Chopin prize was no longer being awarded.

It was then retouched etc etc as you like

400 dollars of library....

But it sucks compared to a real D.

Obviously, if you then make a mashup with reverb, well, even an Orla becomes unrecognizable.

Another consideration

Resonance already exists in many libraries

Another

"This simple game was born precisely with the idea of demonstrating with facts that assertions not supported by facts can often prove to be wrong (as the test has indeed demonstrated! That is why I find myself perfectly in agreement with Croma who, in response to his unfortunate outburst, replies: 'It seems convenient to say it now')."

Strange concept of "facts" if you make a statistic on a sample of 10 elements...

..

And lastly, I reiterate that the test is stupid (not the thesis it would like to prove) because it was poorly formulated; in what sympathetic form could I have said it? Or should only favorable opinions be expressed?

Finally

Good manners, dear maestro, have nothing to do with speaking frankly to people; style is not about giving (unsolicited) lectures only when one has been personally offended, whereas, according to him, he did nothing when he thought others felt offended (and if he considers them offended, he greatly underestimates their intelligence)"}

I have never believed in "cutting" judgments because they look like a wall that allows for little peaceful discussion.

They pave the way for conflict through the exposure of sharp and contrasting opinions, i.e., a battle.

The initiative is not "perfect," we all know that, but it is interesting; it is certainly improvable.

It is also true that the test has not yet demonstrated that digital is at a high level, perhaps it never will be, but in the meantime it has come a long way; in short, it is an interesting path to follow.

Peace and, above all, harmony (we even studied it).

I understand, I see that even when invited to behave more appropriately, she simply refuses to comply. Unfortunately, the world is also made up of this kind of people... No harm done, I hope at least she is able to understand that I prefer to distance myself from an unpleasant person like her in order to gain 100 others and protect the other users and the good reputation of the forum, rather than keeping someone like her who destroys "l'armonia" (as has already been mentioned by tgdigit). I remind you that my position here is that of administrator, and every month I pay along with Pianoexpert (advertising, servers, etc.) to give the site an image; this is why I do not want there to be people like You who, with your haughtiness, risk ruining the good image that our forum is building and thus could also jeopardize our investments. Before sending you away, however, I would like one thing to be clear to you. I do not underestimate anyone and I am always open to constructive dialogue with others; I do not claim to be right like you, I know my limits and unless I have the facts on my side, I do not get stubborn about things and I always try to question myself, as has happened in many other posts where many had a different idea from mine, but as they say: "I don't think like you, but I will defend your idea to the death". The same treatment certainly cannot be reserved for someone who believes they are a step above others and wants to impose their own reasons through verbal violence. I know it is difficult for you to understand, but to be accepted in a society of intelligent people, humility is required; look up this word in the dictionary or ask for information on some other forum, certainly not here anymore. Goodbye...

hello useless arrogant person

...it was clear from the beginning who the troll was, I'm sorry.