But what's the point of making piano patches that sound realistic, except as a tour de force? It's sort of a "Pierre Menard, author of Quixote" sort of thing.
What I'd be interested in is how viable it is for producing intetesting, distinctive sounds, and tweaking them to your liking in a comprehensible way, not poking blindly.
VS plug a headset in and stop being interrupted by irate neighbours annoyed by your enthusiastic musical expression, while still enjoying "real piano" dynamics.
(or waking the kid that you just put to bed in the adjacent room and finally it's that me-time of the day)
Patches / parameter sets / whatever else you call the way to describe it are way more compact and should be much less expensive, shouldn't they? I honestly would expect a competent (if not exquisite) grand piano to be among presets in a good synthesizer.
>But what's the point of making piano patches that sound realistic, except as a tour de force? It's sort of a "Pierre Menard, author of Quixote" sort of thing.
Because via modelling (not necessarily FM-based) they can be made more realistic or more expressive than pre-recorded samples (see Pianotte or SWAM for examples).
Also you can then make the piano tonal characteristics as you want them (instead of confined to a fixed real piano's sound).
This is true, but this likely has to be done once, by the manufacturer? Or maybe several times, in search of perfection. But likely it's not what every musician is expected to do. Also, doing this should still be easier than building your own physical grand piano :)
yeah I don't know how about making one personally, but physical modeling (particularly Pianoteq) is near best-in-class if you want a highly realistic piano sound that you can then tweak to your personal preference over something more traditional like a Sampler lib such as Kontakt's The Gentleman.
What I'd be interested in is how viable it is for producing intetesting, distinctive sounds, and tweaking them to your liking in a comprehensible way, not poking blindly.