Yes, the release samples make a big difference in your demonstration. Though I wonder if you could get half way there without release samples, but by simply adding a little release time to the primary samples...?

blieve in me adjusting the release time of the primary sample wont give you the same effect. some gospel musicians makes release time very low but it sounds very artificial. I have sampled key off samples with sample robot. key off samples gives the damper noises.

Maybe I am missing something, but the Imperial Grand and CFX both have their own sampled key off release/damper notes (i.e. 'CFX KeyOff St' Element waveform). Can't you just use those?

Using a trick that Jason told me about, I also set my key off release notes to EnvFollow to a new PART that I created (using Elem Level as the destination) with a slow declining sound (it just contains the 'CFX ff ff St' Element), so that if I hold the sustain pedal for a period of time, the volume of the key off release notes has decreased slowly over time such that it is always the correct volume, instead of it being at full volume. Basically EnvFollow is the source on the Key off release PART, Elem Level is the destination and the settings are Curve Type 'Dogleg', Uni Ratio= -26 with Param 1 & 2 both at '0'.

The imperial grand sample here is belongs to Nord. I have tried previously both env follower and motion sequencer. But they both failed. Last month badmister said that if you link (group) the release sample to another (to the decay 2 time) , its volume become lower after particular time.however in piano samples sometime one sample can be as long as 17-18 seconds. So you can’t use ADSR. I have used a ghost ( create an element and make its volume down to zero) element and creatE ADSR. after then the release sample volume became zero after 2-3 seconds. However in CFx sample release samples heard all the time when you release the keys. If you use env follower, when you press second key and release first key, you will again hear the first key off sample.

I have used a ghost ( create an element and make its volume down to zero) element and creatE ADSR. after then the release sample volume became zero after 2-3 seconds. However in CFx sample release samples heard all the time when you release the keys. If you use env follower, when you press second key and release first key, you will again hear the first key off sample.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are doing here. If you are holding the sustain pedal you will hear all keys when you let go of the pedal no matter if you had release keys or not. If you are not holding the sustain pedal down, each key will 'Key Off' the release sample at the volume it had gone down to via the Envelope to the other Piano PART that is controlling the level. If I hit a note hard and hold for a while and then hit another note hard and let go of the first note, that first note only sounds out the Key Off release sample at a lower volume. I never allow the volume to go to zero because a real piano always has some release note noise after the keys are let go or after the sustain pedal is lifted. Even if the notes were held for quite a while, letting go of the sustain pedal, there should be some audible key off release sounding out.

The comment is about Envelope Follower being a compromise because it's a "global" parameter that doesn't follow each triggered note like envelopes do. So although Envelope follower is a way to improve the decay of note-off- it's still a compromise.

You've got a 1-Part piano on Part 1 - with key-off samples. When you use envelope follower as an approach, you say that there's a "ghost" Part for the purpose of trying to control the volume of the key-off sample. This Part with no audible output will itself decay over time - and you use that decaying envelope to "squelch" the key-off sample volume. The ghost Part is on Part 2.

The problem would be if you are sustaining a chord - fine - Part 2 is decaying over time and when you let go your chord's notes would theoretically have a lower volume key-off due to the "dying" envelope of Part 2. Before letting go - slam down on the highest note on the keyboard (it doesn't matter which note - but I am imagining a chord in the lower half of the keyboard and the "problem" - for this - note coming in the opposite side of the keyboard). When you slam down - the envelope follower will increase its value - let go of the chord soon after and it "jumps" back up to being loud.

I've mentioned before that the Envelope Follower trick isn't perfect - it has cases, like this, that break it. But it doesn't necessarily make things worse. It could just have times when it acts "the same" as today - and times when the notes you release have a downward adjustment in volume.

The envelope group approach is a better approach since it at least follows the triggered notes rather than being global (kind of like channel aftertouch vs. polyphonic).

That has its limitations too - it's already been summarized here - that the note's envelope at the note-on part of the group may decay down to "0" or near "0" by the time you lift the key. So you may either have to artificially fake the envelope - which I've spoken about before - so the envelope decays slowly over time (like the "Togla-ghost" would do) on the note-on and then hope the sample sounds like you want it to. You could always give the sample itself its own envelope if the "faked" envelope made the overall note-on note not sound natural. Fight the decay - or decay in spite of a long decay. Whichever applies. This is all in the attempt to avoid burning a Part (I mean, make a "ghost part" ).

The "nice" thing about envelope following is that your burned Part ("ghost part" ) would be FM-X and not take up AWM2 polyphony. If you burn a part for the group-follow approach - then the envelope on note-on for note-off to be grouped with would take up AWM2 polyphony. If that's a consideration.

Release velocity would improve this story - but that's not likely to manifest.

I think Yamaha understands the challenge presented here and can see there is a series of compromises (like anything else). I think that it is something that could be improved - with Yamaha's deep appreciation artistry for the acoustic piano. Although there are some knobs to turn - I think it can be seen that there are some compromises that have a negative impact on simulating key-off noises in more accurate level detail. I don't think it's something that has received a ton of critique - as it's the kind of detail that's difficult to perceive within many owners' settings (gigs - loud ambient "noise" ).

So for now pick something that works best for you and go with that. It doesn't have to "look" good. Doesn't have to be efficient (if that's not what you're after). It just has to sound right to you. Whatever that means to you.

...

edit to remove emoji.

In response to Mr. Darryl: when you release the damper pedal, the voice you hear is damper noise, all the dampers hits the strings. This is not possible in montage, maybe you can achieve combining with external program.The problem in cfx and bosendorfer pianos; for example hit one or two keys , press damper pedal 30 seconds, let the piano sound goes away, and release the pedal, you will hear weird loud volume key of sample of the only pressed keys (not pedal noise) you can't hear on an acoustic piano or modeled piano. Some users turn down the volume of key of samples to avoid this situation. The method I use is much more effective than envelope follower or motion sequencer. Moreover, other methods are ineffective when using a 16-channel sequencer combined with DAW (midi rec on DAW).when used this way, you may hear unwanted loud key off samples. If you describe how to install, I can upload the program and all the samples I prepared here 🙂 🙂 . I expect positive or negative feedback from you.If we do it this way, I'm sure the Yamaha will come up with better piano modeling with simple metho in future updates. because the yamaha montage is a really high potential machine and I love this device very much. In recent tests, yamaha montage piano modeling falls behind Nord and Roland (you can watch in YouTube in Andertons music coop. 1. Nord 2. keyscape 3. Casio 4. Yamaha montage 5. Korg Kronos). Even with this simple method, the difference between Yamaha Montage and Nord piano sampling seems to be closed. The only missing parameters are pedal noise and sympathatic string resonance. They are also not very necessary as others. The other important point is test the pianos by reducing the reverb down to zero. the difference will be much more apparent.

I agree that it would be great if Yamaha saw the value in providing modelled key off & resonance and hopefully they will provide this in a future update, but working with what we have now, I have found the envelope to a ghost PART works great for the notes played, emulating the dampers falling on them as they are still vibrating, and after 30 seconds it is just barely audible on those notes. Even when I try hitting lower notes for 30 sec and then hit a higher note hard just before releasing the 30sec lower notes sustain pedal, those lower notes key off is still barely audible, just as I would expect.
The only thing I am really missing though is the subtle noise of lifting the sustain pedal and have the sound of all the keys being dampened. That I will find and add as an additional key off noise.

The resonance I have is quite realistic because it is a combination of sampled resonance from the Epic Grand piano and the a touch of the Montage resonance effect.
Another thing I could improve is to have the ghost PART be an FM-X PART, which I will work on and replace on all my pianos.

Also to note, I have zero reverb on all my pianos, except for ones used on stage. Although I do have a few with very subtle reverb to emulate a studio or small to medium size room.

Piano key-off & resonance modeling would be a good one to add to Ideascale (can't hurt to try) - https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com

ı am loading two pianos today. 4 user library and two program patches captured with montage connect. ı will be waiting your comments. you can try on this samples

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qiW-7XkVVyl0ywOCKrS9aUYn4lqkEtff?usp=sharing

Mr Darryl, You can check and download 4 piano libraries I have created with sample robot . 4 libraries for grand imperial and upright .2 x7b extension files for creating program through montage connect. You have no job with element five. element five for creating ADSR. element 6 ise release samples for genuinely created for piano library. you can increase and decrease the volume to see the difference . I am waiting for your positive or negative feedback and contributions.Thanks a lot.'' especially Badmister'' 🙂 🙂 🙂

@tolga

Can you provide a link to the Anderson's comparison of Yamaha, Keyscape, Casio, and Nord? I quickly looked around and did not find an obvious link. The reason I'm interested is to review what objective metrics they used vs. subjective opinion. Hopefully there are objective metrics and this is not an opinion such as answering "which is better?" by a blindfold test. As this subjective method, although interesting to a point, has its own pitfalls. That's a bit of a tangent from the core of the recent conversation. Regardless of this information - it doesn't change that there are improvements we can "hack" to release samples through different methods as well as realizing that there is always improvement that could be made to the underlying system should we, the users, collectively advertise a need. One way to advertise is to use ideascale. Your audience for better release implementation and related discussion would be best conducted there as I think you would get greater traction with the R&D group who is instrumental in directing future development.

Here is the link on youtube
https://youtu.be/SluEfMe-qYs

https://youtu.be/eqd_Dl301Uk
In this link there is Kronos. Montage gets higher points than kronos

The keyboards were rated on two basic subjective measures. "Feel" and "sound". These are connected and work together - but are also guided by the history and preferences of the musician rating. I think therefore it's difficult to count this more as an interesting opinion of one pianist who has, coming in, a set of biases based on past keyboard experience and personal preference.

They didn't list which "patch" was used for each test. So it's difficult to determine if they did this correctly for each instrument. The first factory "patch" (Performance) in Montage is "CFX +FM" - which, if picked, isn't the "premium" piano sound inside Montage. This can apply equally for all keyboards - or could be "lop sided" for some that are set to the "best" piano and some that are not in the shootout.

In the video with Keyscapes and Fantom - I thought that his playing was most dynamic on the Montage vs. other keyboards. He certainly doesn't like the Yamaha feel and that translates in a big ding. I do enjoy Yamaha's 88 key synth action - so the score would change certainly if he preferred the action more. This is one of those things where historically, from his Motif days, he's developed a dislike for the Yamaha feel while I rather prefer it to other actions (including all of the keyboards tested).

Although the comment about "dynamic playing" is an opinion, it's slightly less subjective than the opinions gathered in the blindfold test. Because it can be tested - plotting sound levels for Montage vs. the others and edit out any "voice over" that conflicts. Noting volume levels for a given keyboard in a period of time and calculating to provide a score based on the range of dynamics. Hopefully it's not my bias - but I thought this aspect of the Montage made it expressive.

I do prefer the approach of modeled pianos on the RD-2000 and Fantom (same v-piano and very similar action). It's interesting the two videos he had what seems like such a different impression of the two keyboards on different days. In both videos the Roland (essentially the same instrument for this "patch" in both videos - assuming they used the 1st piano) was played early before too much bias of hearing other instruments. Played 1st in one video and 2nd in the other. It's one of those things that without objective measures that the same test with the same instruments with the same player can come out seemingly randomly.

For the stated and many unstated reasons, I have a difficult time making very much out of the ranking. I typically use these videos to hear how keyboards sound relative to each other knowing the limitations of this such as the audio chain, product setup, recording quality or issues, and limitations of encoding/decoding. But still I would use these kinds of videos to hear, with earphones, a relative comparison and knowing the limitations of everything gather my own opinion. I can even do this blindfolded if I mark the link and come back to it in a week or so.

... still, this is used sparingly and I go to stores and play on the keyboards myself to make my own finger-through-the-box-to-ear connection.

Is there anyway to convert thoses samples for Kontakt for use when the Montage is away ?