Looking for free acoustic piano samples

[Didier]

Hi All,

Does anyone know a source for free acoustic piano samples to download?

Not speaking of loops, just sampled notes.

I'm looking for a reasonable quality, and in 'standard' format, e.g., wav, aiff, etc.

I find tons of drums, loops, sound FX, vintage synths, but no piano so far.

Didier

[Marc]

I don't understand what you could do with wav or aif files, unless you want to assemble the instrument yourself  

So I recommend sampler format files.

There's the regretted soundfont site which included giga pianos amongst others, several multivelocity pianos up to 40MB, which isn't so bad for free stuff.

Still available is the NS piano:

http://www.natural-studio.co.uk/ns_piano.htm

But you said that it doesn't sound good (I used it on my last piano tune, though it's 27.1 MB) (Steinway Model

Also, you have (almost free (17$ US) this 80 MB piano (Steinway model C)

http://www.trachtman.org/pianosounds/CD4.htm

Take a look also at

http://www.hammersound.net/cgi-bin/soundli...0&ListLength=15

Giga format:

http://www.hum.aau.dk/~bovbjerg/piano.html

(not too bad: 34 MB Steinway model C)

http://www.trachtman.org/pianosounds/CD4.htm

http://www.wstco.net/pianosounds/freesoundfont.htm

[Didier]

Hi Mark,

I don't understand what you could do with wav or aif files, unless you want to assemble the instrument yourself  

'Xactly  

So I recommend sampler format files.

Not an option. I can only use 'standard' sound formats. But some 'sampler' formats contain in fact wav files (e.g., Akai format), plus actual sampler information. This, of course, I can use.

Still available is the NS piano:

http://www.natural-studio.co.uk/ns_piano.htm

But you said that it doesn't sound good (I used it on my last piano tune, though it's 27.1 MB)

It wasn't that bad

(Steinway Model

That's perhaps why I didn't like it that much. I prefer usually prefer pianos with more "character" than perfect Steinway grands.

Thanks for your various suggestions, even if I cannot use them at the moment. Unless you know a Soundfount to 'sound format' converter. I think I've read something about it, but I forgot where.

Didier

[Didier]

Unless you know a Soundfount to 'sound format' converter. I think I've read something about it, but I forgot where.

I just found it. It's called Xtrackk (http://homepages.compuserve.de/murmel99/software.htm).

Now, I go and check your suggestions

Didier

[Marc]

I just found it. It's called Xtrackk (http://homepages.compuserve.de/murmel99/software.htm).

Now, I go and check your suggestions

Didier

Wow, je ne savais pas que ce genre de convertisseur existait! Je connaissais deux "soundfont to..." mais pas l'inverse

Autrement, il y a toujours le Vienna 2.3, gratuit, lequel permet d'accéder aux fichier wav et les sauvegarder.

Pourquoi ne peux tu pas utiliser des instruments déjà assemblés? Si tu construit tes propres instruments, sous quel format le fais-tu? Halion, Gigasampler, EXS24, NKI, Akai, soundfont?

[Didier]

Wow, je ne savais pas que ce genre de convertisseur existait! Je connaissais deux "soundfont to..." mais pas l'inverse

Autrement, il y a toujours le Vienna 2.3, gratuit, lequel permet d'accéder aux fichier wav et les sauvegarder.

Bonjour Marc,

C'est sympa en français

But I'll switch to English, because I think the others have the right to know  

I wasn't aware of Vienna either, I could have used that.

The nice thing about Xtrackk is that it shows all the presets, layers, key assignments, so that you have an idea of how the samples are used. It shows also the start and loop points in the samples, which will come handy to set loop points.

Pourquoi ne peux tu pas utiliser des instruments déjà assemblés?

Because my sampler doesn't know these formats.

I think I have to do my come-out

My sampler is an ADAP I Soundrack. If you've never heard about it, that would be quite normal. It's a hardware sampler circa 1988, using an Atari for memory, and as a front-end.

Si tu construit tes propres instruments, sous quel format le fais-tu? Halion, Gigasampler, EXS24, NKI, Akai, soundfont?

Answer above, so in fact ADAP proprietary format. The ADAP's using Sound Designer I as a sample format. I have a converter to and from this format, unfortunately the loop points are not recognised by the converter  

So, if you knew of a converter to Sound Designer I, keeping the loop points...

Didier

[BongStuff]

The ADAP - yes I remember that! Did you get it from a TV post production studio or something? Cool!

However, I would say that creating a usable piano patch from scratch might be a bit, shall we say, labour intensive?

How about a cheap 2nd hand module? The U110 ( mentioned by HH a while ago ) has some pretty useful piano patches. Might not stand up in an isolated performance, but sits well in a mix. Nice variation of bright, smooth, honky-tonk etc...the electric pianos are excellent too.

I reckon you could get one for about 100 euros.

Good luck, whichever way.

 BS

[Marc]

My sampler is an ADAP I Soundrack. If you've never heard about it, that would be quite normal. It's a hardware sampler circa 1988, using an Atari for memory, and as a front-end.

Aaah! Now I see where those vintage 80s bass sounds and other in your songs come from!  

Atari... Brings back some memories! My first computer was an 8-bit Atari 800XL. Bought it when it came out.

Perhaps BongStuff is right, building an instrument from sratch is rather labour-intensive! I understand using the original sounds of the ol' klunker-sampler for the character, but new sounds, especially piano instruments, is better left to new technology?

Or what about a soundfont emulator software? It's what I use for soundfonts, far more convenient than hardware playback of this format, even if I have a Soundblaster card. There are VSTi versions for Cubase and DXi for Cakewalk or others.

[davlan]

One of the things to remember about a piano is it's dynamic behavior i.e. the way it responds when you whack it. The point being is that a weighted action keyboard can make the sound more realistic than the actual quality of sample data. Try playing a really good sampled piano on plasticky keys and it can sound a bit silly. Admittedly this doesn't help your implied budgetry considerations.

I did get a free cut down version of the Bosendorfer 290 samples. It was OK. It my be available as a download somewhere.

Dave

[Didier]

The ADAP - yes I remember that! Did you get it from a TV post production studio or something?

Hi BS,

I got mine from an individual, he was using it as a glorified reel to reel, he is in "electro-acoustic" music (if you see what I mean). A post prod studio would most likely have sold me an ADAP II (the direct to disk version). I wouldn't have objected

Cool!

This thing starts to grow on me.

However, I would say that creating a usable piano patch from scratch might be a bit, shall we say, labour intensive?

Yes and no. It doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to be full range (i.e., C0 to C8 ). At the moment, I'm just experimenting, to try and see what sounds good or not.

I'm cumulating experience before I start the "labour intensive" task: sampling my own upright.

How about a cheap 2nd hand module? The U110 ( mentioned by HH a while ago ) has some pretty useful piano patches. Might not stand up in an isolated performance, but sits well in a mix. Nice variation of bright, smooth, honky-tonk etc...

The U110 is good.

I have both a MT32 and a SC88. I think they cover similar sounds.

Funny thing: I did a quick and dirty sample of only one note of the standard piano patch from the SC88, just to test the ADAP. So far, I like it better than the original. And I don't think it's not about grain or something (the ADAP seems very accurate). I guess it's about how it reacts to velocity. More musical to me.

the electric pianos are excellent too.

There seems to be an endless list of exellent electric pianos in every synth/sound bank. Unfortunately (so far), I have never use an electric piano sound

I reckon you could get one for about 100 euros.

Price was not an issue, here.

Good luck, whichever way.

Thanks

Didier

[Didier]

Aaah! Now I see where those vintage 80s bass sounds and other in your songs come from!  

It could've, but no

I only got the ADAP two weeks ago, so the bass sounds you hear come from either a MT32 or a SC88.

Unfortunately, I got the ADAP without any sounds. But, anyway, it would have been only one floppy (720K), according to the manual, so it isn't a great loss.

By the way, speaking of vintage sounds, the ADAP is not 8/12 bit, 22K, as some of the competition at that time. It's the "regular" 16 bits 44K.

Atari... Brings back some memories! My first computer was an 8-bit Atari 800XL. Bought it when it came out.

At that time, I think I was buying a ZX81.

Perhaps BongStuff is right, building an instrument from sratch is rather labour-intensive! I understand using the original sounds of the ol' klunker-sampler for the character, but new sounds, especially piano instruments, is better left to new technology?

You're probably all right

As mentionned above, all sounds are new to me. I don't expect to achieve a perfect, or even average piano. Just something different, that is usable for me.

Or what about a soundfont emulator software? It's what I use for soundfonts, far more convenient than hardware playback of this format, even if I have a Soundblaster card. There are VSTi versions for Cubase and DXi for Cakewalk or others.

I still don't feel any pleasure at the idea of having a PC in the studio. I spent enough time on these for lasting me a lifetime, and I'm using one for every day tasks.

But, in the studio, it has to be something I enjoy.

Didier

[Didier]

One of the things to remember about a piano is it's dynamic behavior i.e. the way it responds when you whack it.

Very true. My dealer has a gorgeous second hand Fatar available (140 cm, exactly as a standard piano). Unfortunately, so far, I haven't found a way to fit that in my studio  

The point being is that a weighted action keyboard can make the sound more realistic than the actual quality of sample data. Try playing a really good sampled piano on plasticky keys and it can sound a bit silly.

I fully agree. But that's where the ADAP, even played with plastic keys, seems more musical to me, so far, than the SC88.

Admittedly this doesn't help your implied budgetry considerations.

No implied budget, up to a point, of course

It's more about what gear I find incentive or not.

I did get a free cut down version of the Bosendorfer 290 samples. It was OK. It my be available as a download somewhere.

Thanks Dave. I'll have a look.

Didier

[Marc]

Didier -- don't you find your gear a little limiting? Doesn't it make your songs all sound a little bit alike?

Everyone's different, but for me a sound is very important, so I need variety. I hear an instrument sound and it opens a world of musical ideas. If I use the same instrument or playing technique, I tend to stay within the same mind set, and what comes out of it is very predictable.

Is it really that you don't find pleasure in having a PC and new gear or that you find security in your old equipment? How does this influence the music you make?

[Didier]

Hi Marc,

Didier -- don't you find your gear a little limiting?

Not that much. I find my abilities much more limiting, usually. On the other hand, the fact I bought the sampler obviously means I wanted something new

Doesn't it make your songs all sound a little bit alike?

That's not really for me to say, but that's an interesting subject.

Everyone's different, but for me a sound is very important, so I need variety. I hear an instrument sound and it opens a world of musical ideas. If I use the same instrument or playing technique, I tend to stay within the same mind set, and what comes out of it is very predictable.

So what do you think of a normal rock'n'roll band?

Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps first album, as an example. The sound is strictly the same, from songs to songs (same instruments). That doesn't make it less interesting for me. And I *wouldn't* want Cliff Galoping Gallup to change sound.

Other example: Glen Gould playing Bach. Just the same boring piano on two full CDs. Still interesting for me.

Another point is that (for me), a song has barely any relationship with the production/sound used. It must exist "on its own", i.e., the structure, melody, etc., does not rely on a specific sound/gear.

My composition guitar is not a very good one, on purpose. I don't want to be disturbed by the quality of the sound.

Of course, there are exceptions, and a specific sound might trigger inspiration, so I understand what you say.

Is it really that you don't find pleasure in having a PC and new gear

I don't confuse PCs and gear. I like gear.

or that you find security in your old equipment?

Does a pianist is just afraid to change, because he's using only a piano for years? And why some guitarists favor old guitars, and wouldn't change them for a new one?

Thus said, it's true I wouldn't want experimenting new gear constantly. When I'm doing that, I'm not really doing music.(Even if it is fun, most of the time).

I think we're not really speaking of the same thing. For me, my real music gear is my guitars, my amp and my piano. The rest is more "production" gear. And I don't find my guitars, amp and piano limiting *at all*.

How does this influence the music you make?

Exceptions apart, the music I make is created with an acoustic guitar or the piano. So whatever synths, computers, etc. I have would have or not has nearly no influence on my music (the core of it).

Of course, it has an obvious influence on how these "bare" songs will be "translated", and thus how they will be perceived by the listeners.

I must have heard at least 10 versions of Lady Jane performed by Lou Reed. Some of them were totally different, but it's still Lady Jane.

Interesting discussion, Marc  

Didier

[Steve]

Having listened to both of you, I think the difference is that Didier writes songs and records them. Where as Marc composes music and produces it...

[BongStuff]

Having listened to both of you, I think the difference is that Didier writes songs and records them. Where as Marc composes music and produces it...

Right, I guess what you're saying is it's about chosen direction. Marc's making music for flim soundtracks - so necessarily his work has to be well produced, as well as interesting and fitting compositionally. Didier is writing songs to be performed by a rock-oriented band, so the emphasis there is more on "traditional" songwriting skills.

I don't think the two are that different though.

I see performance ( ie. playing an instrument, solo, in a band, orchestra whatever ) as a pure form of production. Taking the example of the pianist who never wants to deviate away from piano sounds - this is because (s)he has the depth of technical understanding of the instrument to allow precise expression of the music they play. In a sense they produce their music through their performance.

Most classical symphonic music was never "produced" but played, tweaked, restructured, and played again, over and over until the composer was satisfied that the piece was complete and that the instrumentalists had interpreted the piece as intended - a process as complex as any studio production, and not that far removed.

 BS

[Didier]

I don't think the two are that different though.

What you write makes much sense.

I see performance ( ie. playing an instrument, solo, in a band, orchestra whatever ) as a pure form of production.

Reflecting on what you wrote, it's true that, before I start recording, I  have usually rehearsed a song live for months (years). So, in fact, most of the production is done during this stage, where the song "matures". Adapting the machines to fit my singing and playing, but also adapting my singing and playing to fit with the machines.

Didier

[Marc]

What you write makes much sense.

Reflecting on what you wrote, it's true that, before I start recording, I  have usually rehearsed a song live for months (years). So, in fact, most of the production is done during this stage, where the song "matures". Adapting the machines to fit my singing and playing, but also adapting my singing and playing to fit with the machines.

Didier

That's the painful part... playing it over and over again... and again. I spent the first ten years of my introduction to music interpreting pieces, scales, techniques. The most ferocious competition is with classicaly-trained musicians; many are so talented.

But the grat thing about technology, is that you can tweak your performance. When I record the guitar, I can reach a note at the end of a piece without starting from the top. If I'm asked to perform it live (which I doubt), then I can have the pleasure of practicing it, and it makes sense with the feedback of an audience.

Didier, you are a performer, you have a public, which explains your approach... however, why still an Atari 520ST odl synths? You don't purposefuly want to sound typically 80s?

[Didier]

That's the painful part... playing it over and over again... and again

.

It depends what I play, and in what state of mind. Some things I can never be tired of playing.

I spent the first ten years of my introduction to music interpreting pieces, scales, techniques. The most ferocious competition is with classicaly-trained musicians; many are so talented.

I never tried to compete with the good guys: I was much too lazy. Now that time has passed, though, I do enjoy playing exercises, but the first months beginners' book

But the grat thing about technology, is that you can tweak your performance. When I record the guitar, I can reach a note at the end of a piece without starting from the top.

To each his own. I wouldn't do that for a guitar part. Of course, I would redo a chorus, if it's separated from the verses, for instance. But otherwise, if I miss a note at the end of a 5 minutes part, I redo everything from the start. I want the performance to be "consistent". That's even more true for vocals: even there are gaps between parts, I always do a full take.

On the other hand, I sometimes do what you say on keyboard parts.

If I'm asked to perform it live (which I doubt), then I can have the pleasure of practicing it, and it makes sense with the feedback of an audience.

In my experience, you're not asked to perform live, you more kind of beg to play live

And for those who have enjoyed an hostile/indifferent audience (I wonder which is worse), one may wonder why you're supposed to enjoy that sometimes.

Didier, you are a performer

Admittedly

, you have a public,

Barely, but agreed for the sake of the argument.

which explains your approach...

however, why still an Atari 520ST

It's a Stacy with 4 Meg, and a Mega STE for the ADAP, mind you

odl synths?

Did I mention I have (and use, on one song) a Casio VL-30?

As far as I would do only MIDI with the computer, the fact that it's an Atari or not is not relevant. Last time I checked, there was no more possibilities, MIDIwise, in the latest incarnation of Logic, than in what I use.

And, if it's for using hardware synths only, using a recent synth mimicking a 70s synth (that's mostly what I see in magazines) wouldn't make it more "modern".

Part of the answer is that I use my gear live. Not often, but it has to be ready when needed. Which means, for me, rock solid and trusted sequencer and related gear.

Some use hardware sequencers for that, but I trust Notator (my live sequencer) on an Atari as much as a hardware sequencer, and it's more convenient and has much more possibilities.

And hardware sounds, because I have no crew to feed a sampler between songs.

I know too well that my recordings do not translate as well as I’d like how I sound live. But that has to account more from my poor sound engineer (which I don’t pretend to be) talent than from the sounds themselves.

You don't purposefuly want to sound typically 80s?

Do I? (sound typically 80s).

No, that's not my purpose. And none of the people who enjoy my music (some of them are musicians) have said to me: "I like your music, but it sounds typically 80s". Or, "I like your music, because it sounds typically 80s".

But it's true I had this kind of comment from a very few musicians, not enjoying my music the least (I mean, I could play the recorder, they wouldn't enjoy my music anyway), saying, for instance:

"You can't use that sound, I recognise a MT32"

Me: 'Why is it bad?"

Musician: "Because it's a MT32!"

About your question:

Is it because you think, because of my gear, I'm wasting whatever talents I may have, and that it distracting people from otherwise good songs?

Or is it you just try to understand why someone would use 10 years dated technology?

Didier

[Marc]

I used to have an Korg M1, and everything coming out of it made me relate to a particular moment, song, etc. If I hear an M1 piano sound in a song, I have to concentrate to get past the sound and all that it reminds me. Likewise, If I hear a song with a voice or instrument that reminds of another song, then, my brain will tend to recall the orginal experience instead and bypass the new one.

But that can be usefull to recreate a particular mood, using a collectively shared or cultural "sound", you can get to a desired result by reproducing it in a new creative context.

It was a comment on your gear and not your songs: I like your songs. All of your songs have been on my hard-drive for a time now.

My point was only that ideas have a colour. Having a broad pallette may paint a paysage in new and interesting ways and provide even new ideas, a new approach, a new technique! That's what I like a PC compared to MIDI-only gear: a wide pallette of sounds is readily available, and new ones are constantly being developed.