Ultimately I think what it comes down to is a kind of denial of modern technology. People are unwilling to admit that some things are just that good. Whether it be guitar amp sims, drum modeling plugins like MODO Drum, or pianos like Pianoteq, people still want to hold on to their belief that they will never be good enough, or that maybe they'd use it in a 'rough draft' scenario but never in a real production... It's always something.

 

i dont think that saying Pianoteq doesnt cut it makes you some type of musical Luddite

this is exactly on point, i dont think its necessary to imply people are too simple to understand this 'breakthrough'
also this whole thing where its light on CPU or whatever, who cares if the sound isnt there, how many pianos are you running at a time anyhow
I enjoy playing on it and welcome all the improvments to it, but this whole 'delete all your libraries, PT9 is here!' is a bit much
in any case, im always glad to have more choices

 

I'm thrilled by the technological realization of a real piano in software as a DAW plugin – what an incredible achievement!

Who would have thought something like this was possible 20 years ago?
I find Pianoteq very clearly laid out, and you can adjust a lot of things and play different simulated models.

Pianoteq brings you much closer to all the facets of a real piano, and all the
adjustable parameters enhance your musical understanding of the instrument.

Pianoteq costs $269.00, Steinway & Sons O-180, built in 1923, completely overhauled - like new, costs €37,000.00 used.
Software has the advantage over hardware in that it is much cheaper, portable, and usable on a home PC in a DAW.

 

does pianoteq have any shitty sounding pianos like the default pianos in a DAW?

 

Let me guys wrap up the debate as the piano guru I am. Not.
CONCLUSSION: ADD A FUCKIN' REVERB

 

Chiming in. Just tried the Rhodes Music Wurlitzer, and it blows Pianoteq out of the water. All that talk about physical modeling being "more real than real" because of random variations in this or that parameter... well, maybe so, but the Rhodes Music product just sounds more like a Wurlitzer piano, period. And that idea that "every electric piano is different, so you can’t nail THE sound of a Wurlitzer", sure, that might be true, but when I listen to Stevie Wonder or Steely Dan, what I hear is way, way closer to the Rhodes Music product than to Pianoteq. I don’t know about the acoustic pianos, but to me Pianoteq’s Wurlitzer sounds as plasticky as Arturia’s, just with more bells and whistles.

 

Alright, I'll go there.

Without too much detail, I've probably got the best setup you can have - a fully-weighted, 88-key MIDI 2.0 controller, four continuous-velocity foot pedals, and an ultra low-latency interface. I can't blame the hardware. I also grew up in recording studios my entire life and studied piano at Vanderbilt's Blair School of Music for several years in my teens before Juilliard, so I do know how to play, and I know what great pianos sound like (not just tone, but expressiveness). I spent years working professionally as a recording and mixing engineer in Nashville, so I trust my ears. I've got great monitors and headphones in my home studio, plus Slate VSX. Just putting all that out there as a baseline for discussion.

I still don't think Pianoteq is as good as you think it is. And that's okay - I'm glad you love it. It's really impressive. I just don't think it sounds as good as the real thing, or even as good as some of the best sampled pianos. And what I really don't like is the Pianoteq fans acting like anyone who doesn't agree that it's the be-all, end-all of pianos must not have good ears or understand what an "unadulterated" piano tone sounds like.

In some ways, this feels like arguing that an AI-generated photograph of an event is more authentic than an actual photograph. Pianoteq is AMAZING considering that it's entirely simulated. Nothing about it is real, and yet it sounds very real. So close in fact that many people can't tell the difference and may even prefer it. I'm just saying, let's allow room for other people who don't prefer it. For the same reasons that pianists argue over a favorite Bosendorfer or Yamaha or Steinway, I don't think it means anyone's ears or experience level is any better or worse - it just means we're different.

 

To the point. Because VSL Synchron and VILabs pianos sound better.

 

Hello,

Which MIDI 2.0 Controller do you use? And your post is on spot. I can't understand why some Pianoteq fans will front you, even If you say Pianoteq is great but you still prefer other software.

 

Pianoteq sounds so perfect, that worries out. All libraries so far aren't there. With MIDI 2.0 and a deep work on imperfections and randomness, a proper UI, and deep studying of Philips, Decca, DG recordings, I trust next year AI would get some good results. Controllers need more weight! And latency needs to really reach zero level. Acoustics and material interactions are almost there thru physical modeling and IRs. Somehow Pianos are a difficult beast to tame (and recreate)...

 

Yes! You get it... The less-than-authentic instrument sounds coming form PT has nothing to do with MIDI hardware, technique, or sundry know-how at this point. We're (or I was at least) talking about the sheer SOUND of the instrument itself. The sound alone as triggered from a DAW piano-roll, say - Can't really get much more generic than that as far as triggering a sound from it - pretty plain jane. The SOUND of PianoTeq is just not convincing as a alternative to a real acoustic piano or even when pitted against more superior sampled libraries. This is based on observation, trial and error listening and comparing to real and sampled acoustic pianos. The real tell for me is the lowest and highest scales of ANY of the pianoteq "models" - the lowest 6-8 notes sounds like a beaten garbage can. In regard to the last few playable high notes, they sound like old type writer keys. no disernable tonal quality at all.

 

I never thought the rhodes simulations were as good in pianoteq, but this is only natural because there is less acoustic processes going on with a rhodes than there is on a piano, and more electronic things that need to be modeled. A piano is purely an acoustic instrument, and pianoteq has nailed every variant of the piano IMO. They have also got the classical guitar really well simulated too I think, i've been able to get really nice classical guitar tones from it with the proper mic setup. But when it comes to things like a rhodes or a wurly I agree with you that it's not good enough, but I don't necessarily blame modartt because way to model a rhodes is different than the way you would go about modeling a piano, which relies more on physics and equations rather than emulating preamp stages and other circuitry. I don't know if they have that part of the modeling down yet, but i'm sure they will get there eventually.

 

Beside preferences, everyone his own, I think physmod is the way to go and in a future will be highly sophisticated, and sampling can't store every possible physical nuance or randomness.

Let's talk about sympathetic string resonance.
Most sample libraries, since long, recreate the simpathetic resonance, but on most, for two or even just one octave relative span - keep pushed C3 (one octave below middle), push hardly C4 and C3 will resonate.
Do the same with C5, some library will do, some (maybe many) won't.

Now do the same with Pteq.
You'll get the same thing, but for most of the keyboard span.
Now again, let's do the hard work that I think no sample libraries will do.

Again, keep pushed C3, then play hardly G3, you'll get sympathetic PARTIALS resonance and for mostly the whole keyboard span.
The same effect with EVERY single note, partials will affect, some more, some less, sympathetic resonance, just try, keep C3 and play C#3, then D3, etc.

This is only possible with math algorhythms, unless proven the opposite.

BTW some of the digital controllers are already enough weighted, even more than a grand.
What is bit more difficult to replicate is the lever lenght of a grand key, but IMO not so important.

 

For all pianoteq sound defenders

P.S. consider this is not recorded with studio quality mic and all the sounds you hear is like through API550a bandpass filter.

 

Last edited: Nov 9, 2025 at 11:15 AM

I totally agree.
The only library I will keep is Piano in Blue which was recorded in a special room.

 

Modo Drum isn't actually a good example because it's not completely modeled:
It partly relies on samples which explains its size.
You were maybe referring to its little brother Modo Bass which is true modeling.

 

Last edited: Nov 9, 2025 at 12:45 PM

"For all pianoteq sound defenders"
What does it mean? I don't get the point.
A real piano vs VST? And very bad mono audio, too.

 

Right, Modo Drum is relying on samples for cymbals, and IMO not even very good, pretty short decay.
Much better the free Kontakt library Sennheiser, high quality cymbals, but also the rest is more than enough.

 

That means pianoteq still have room for improvement

why not as a reference? try Production Grand 2 or Pianoverse Concert Grand YF3 it sounds similar to this real piano example

thats the point! a very bad mono audio of real piano can defeat pianoteq realism and to be honest its not mono.

 

Last edited: Nov 9, 2025 at 12:42 PM