Radical piano vs piano refill

[Jamesville]

Seeing how the two of them are in the may sale can someone give their opinion on which one I should go for?

Thanks everyone

[eXode]

Of course tastes differ but I'd choose Radical Piano because of it's clever UI, good sound, and features. One might argue that Piano ReFill sounds better, but I think that difference probably is diminished in a mix, etc, and the direct access to many features in the Radical Piano makes up for it.

[normen]

What Exode said. If you want "typical" realistic piano sound and have the piano play solo / in front go for the ReFill, if you want very flexible sound for piano in a mix go for Radical Piano.

[Jamesville]

Sold... Thanks for the replies. Nice to see straightforward answers.

[Melody303]

I'm saving myself for the hypothetical day Pianoteq will get a release as a Rack Extension. :p
I just asked Modartt about it again today, and I'll be optimistic (with no particular reason to be) until they shoot me down.

[Stranger.]

ΣΣΣ

[joeyluck]

I vote for both! Both are really great!

[Carol Rein]

Listen to this, is refill based:

Radical piano or Pianoteq can't reach that level of realism.
This is a sensitive system made with 6 NN-XT controlled by a combinator. This piano has up to 11 samples per NNXT (some of them native from Reason pianos refill plus foreigner ones)
The system has action for "Una Corda" pedal, Sostenuto pedal and damper pedal with half pedaling. in my case controlled by a Korg PU-2 tri-pedal.
The FX like hammers, damper release, pedals, strings release, detune, impedance, etc, are controlled via mixer and Combi rotaries just like Pianoteq does in its UI.
I vote for refills, no doubt.

[Olivier]

Listen to this, is refill based:

Radical piano or Pianoteq can't reach that level of realism.
This is a sensitive system made with 6 NN-XT controlled by a combinator. This piano has up to 11 samples per NNXT (some of them native from Reason pianos refill plus foreigner ones)
The system has action for "Una Corda" pedal, Sostenuto pedal and damper pedal with half pedaling. in my case controlled by a Korg PU-2 tri-pedal.
The FX like hammers, damper release, pedals, strings release, detune, impedance, etc, are controlled via mixer and Combi rotaries just like Pianoteq does in its UI.
I vote for refills, no doubt.

I don't agree on the level of realism. Sure it sounds great but what I always miss with pure sample based pianos is the sympathetic resonance that makes a real piano "sing". It is something that pianoteq and RadPi can do because they are part physical modeling. If you just want a few chords in the mix a sample based instrument will probably be fine. There's little room in the mix to listen to hear it anyway. But if I want to practice and find nice singing chords, and I'm not at my piano I grab pianoteq or RadPi.

[QVprod]

I don't agree on the level of realism. Sure it sounds great but what I always miss with pure sample based pianos is the sympathetic resonance that makes a real piano "sing". It is something that pianoteq and RadPi can do because they are part physical modeling. If you just want a few chords in the mix a sample based instrument will probably be fine. There's little room in the mix to listen to hear it anyway. But if I want to practice and find nice singing chords, and I'm not at my piano I grab pianoteq or RadPi.

Actually that isn't true. The Pianos included in Komplete 10 (and 11) are sample based and all simulate sympathetic resonance. Even an old Yamaha CP300 digital piano (also sample based) I play at church every week simulates it. Modeled pianos in general don't provide any advantage here.

You are however right that Radpi is currently the only piano available for Reason that has it.

[sdst]

Listen to this, is refill based:

no offense but that thing sounds like a potato piano. lol

I prefer the Radical Piano, if I want something more real then i use the native instruments piano

[Olivier]

I don't agree on the level of realism. Sure it sounds great but what I always miss with pure sample based pianos is the sympathetic resonance that makes a real piano "sing". It is something that pianoteq and RadPi can do because they are part physical modeling. If you just want a few chords in the mix a sample based instrument will probably be fine. There's little room in the mix to listen to hear it anyway. But if I want to practice and find nice singing chords, and I'm not at my piano I grab pianoteq or RadPi.

Actually that isn't true. The Pianos included in Komplete 10 (and 11) are sample based and all simulate sympathetic resonance. Even an old Yamaha CP300 digital piano (also sample based) I play at church every week simulates it. Modeled pianos in general do provide any advantage here.

You are however right that Radpi is currently the only piano available for Reason that has it.

I should've been more verbose, i was talking about the sample based piano's in reason
In kontakt you can script. So you are basically scripting the physical model into the sampler making it more then "pure sampling".

[Vince-Noir-99]

I still think Radical Piano can sound very natural, and for me it wins over any Refill for these reasons:
- Friendly interface
- Ultra-low memory impact
- Endless tweaking +adjustable mechanical noise

[QVprod]

I don't agree on the level of realism. Sure it sounds great but what I always miss with pure sample based pianos is the sympathetic resonance that makes a real piano "sing". It is something that pianoteq and RadPi can do because they are part physical modeling. If you just want a few chords in the mix a sample based instrument will probably be fine. There's little room in the mix to listen to hear it anyway. But if I want to practice and find nice singing chords, and I'm not at my piano I grab pianoteq or RadPi.

Actually that isn't true. The Pianos included in Komplete 10 (and 11) are sample based and all simulate sympathetic resonance. Even an old Yamaha CP300 digital piano (also sample based) I play at church every week simulates it. Modeled pianos in general do provide any advantage here.

You are however right that Radpi is currently the only piano available for Reason that has it.

I should've been more verbose, i was talking about the sample based piano's in reason
In kontakt you can script. So you are basically scripting the physical model into the sampler making it more then "pure sampling".

Ah ok that's what you meant by "pure sampling".

[ljekio]

I vote for sample based pianos.
Sound of radical piano has seemed to me unnatural since was released it.
Reason pianos refill is quite good and I frequently use Maestro concert Grand what I converted from giga format.

[miscend]

Radical piano is good for making unrealistic pianos.

[QVprod]

Worth noting that this thread is from May. - Though I share fault for responding to a necro post myself

[Carol Rein]

Listen to this, is refill based:

no offense but that thing sounds like a potato piano. lol

I prefer the Radical Piano, if I want something more real then i use the native instruments piano

I really don't know what's a potato piano.
I only know that I've tested this piano sound with "non DAW" people (average people and classical related people)

and they think that is a real piano and get very surprised when I tell them it's digital, while listening at Pianoteq or any other physically modeled sound that same people always find the artificiality due the extreme clean and even sound.
I´m also a 3D animator and it happens all the time with renders, average people find the artificiality in the clean CGI:

(from evermotion)


but when people look at my "dirty renders"



they believe that are actual photographs or footages

However... another 3D animators tend to think that "very CGI" (aka clean physically based images) are better and more believable because are more sophisticated and "physically correct"... and that's a real vice among the CG society...

Well, the same here in DAW society, I think there's sort of bad habit in a taste for electronic clean textures.
I'm coming from classical music and that "aseptophilic" trend in DAW society is quite evident for me.

[sdst]

this is an nnxt piano, I can't play classical this is a midi



the 3d is very good congra. I also do 3D and 2D animation

[Ottostrom]

Well, the same here in DAW society, I think there's sort of bad habit in a taste for electronic clean textures.
I'm coming from classical music and that "aseptophilic" trend in DAW society is quite evident for me.

I think this is a really good point. I mean, its really hard to mic up a real piano to get such ultra clean sound as in some of the best piano Vsts.
Sometimes the "dirt" is what makes it believable.

[Carol Rein]

this is an nnxt piano, I can't play classical this is a midi

That´s pretty much the same sample I've used for my piano
Reason pianos (specially SteinD Amb S) are very thick and rich, but kinda plain regadring dynamics, so I've crossfaded some softer (cuasi una corda) samples for lower vel (pianississimo to pianissimo) and crossfaded some brighter groups for higher vels (forte to fortissimo) kinda Pianoteq bright sound, but for those crossfading I've always kept the Stein sounding in the background, because for the main string the Steinway piano is very colorful and sweet... at least that's how I perceive it.

Thanks for your compliment about CG

[selig]

With 3D and with sounds, isn't it a "horses for courses" thing? If you're trying to sell a new condo (and constructions isn't yet complete), the "clean" 3D renders look, well, clean. But if you're trying to make a stylistic "statement", the dirty is more likely to have the desired appeal.

But I'm spoiled and have access (and can more or less play) a real piano in a nice studio setting, so I use that when I want the "real" sound. But I've always also been a fan of "clean" electronic instruments and samples.

I hear the difference as an artistic choice, and I tend to choose the one that best fits the mood I'm going for.

In Reason I actually like the Reason Pianos Steinway D, which is also used for ID8's main piano, Radical Pianos, and some of my own "dirty" samples (one being an out of tune upright with very few samples!). Each has it's place in my sonic "pallet", and each get used over time.

[selig]

Listen to this, is refill based:

no offense but that thing sounds like a potato piano. lol

I prefer the Radical Piano, if I want something more real then i use the native instruments piano

I really don't know what's a potato piano.
I only know that I've tested this piano sound with "non DAW" people (average people and classical related people)
and they think that is a real piano and get very surprised when I tell them it's digital, while listening at Pianoteq or any other physically modeled sound that same people always find the artificiality due the extreme clean and even sound.
I´m also a 3D animator and it happens all the time with renders, average people find the artificiality in the clean CGI:

However... another 3D animators tend to think that "very CGI" (aka clean physically based images) are better and more believable because are more sophisticated and "physically correct"... and that's a real vice among the CG society...

Well, the same here in DAW society, I think there's sort of bad habit in a taste for electronic clean textures.
I'm coming from classical music and that "aseptophilic" trend in DAW society is quite evident for me.

Very cool renders all around!

It's like the difference between the films 2001 vs Blade Runner - love them both but one is very clean and the other very dirty, visually speaking. And they both "work" for me, for different reasons. Though I have to say when I first saw Blade Running my impression was "FINALLY, a future that is not 'perfect' and clean (but it wasn't in space either, where I'm guessing "clean" is essential)!

Anyway, sorry for the tangent…

As for the piano example, it sounds "real" to me because of the space around it, either created with the sample (using a classical rather than pop microphone approach) or with post production (short room reverb) that sounds realistic. In other words, it's a classical recording and a classical piece - could be rag-time, "new-age", boogie-woogie, rock-n-roll etc. would not sound as convincing?

[Carol Rein]

There is no tangent detour here. Are just different aspects of the same thing.
Regarding the 2001 vs Blade Runner, I think that's not the pont (near but not exactly) because if you make an animation like Gravity or whatever "clean" environment, you have to distort the edges of the shapes no matter the clean and sophisticated environment you want to recreate, because if you don't distort anything, the continuity ITSELF will show immediately that is NOT made by matter. (that said is aplying to both, sound and image)
So as being a digital simulation you have to take care of disrupting the continuity, otherwise the projection itself (sound or image) shows artificiality... unless you want to show a future made of special polymers that won't absorb dirt, dust, fingerprints, and perfectly match by molecular junction... or whatever that won't happen today in our environment. But in that case, that environment is itself artificial, and it isn't preteding to look natural in any way.
The same for instruments.

If the sound try to be realistically accoustic, it has to be dirty as the matter that produces the sound











How could be perfect and evenly sounded an instrument that is a heavy machinery (near to grotesque)? which, as you perfectly know it starts to detune by the moment you have finished to tune it, and have a lot of moving pieces inside that easily mess up, the same as your house is dirtying by the moment you finish your cleansing, and starts to mess up your daily number of house stuff.
The sound has to "look" exactly like the internal machinery that produces it.

[selig]

There is no tangent detour here. Are just different aspects of the same thing.
Regarding the 2001 vs Blade Runner, I think that's not the pont (near but not exactly) because if you make an animation like Gravity or whatever "clean" environment, you have to distort the edges of the shapes no matter the clean and sophisticated environment you want to recreate, because if you don't distort anything, the continuity ITSELF will show immediately that is NOT made by matter. (that said is aplying to both, sound and image)
So as being a digital simulation you have to take care of disrupting the continuity, otherwise the projection itself (sound or image) shows artificiality... unless you want to show a future made of special polymers that won't absorb dirt, dust, fingerprints, and perfectly match by molecular junction... or whatever that won't happen today in our environment. But in that case, that environment is itself artificial, and it isn't preteding to look natural in any way.

Architectural renderings don't always do this though, do they? Having grown up around architects I've seen some amazing perspective drawings that low real and fake at the same time, and don't even try to show artificiality.

Very interesting discussion IMO.