Hi

I am just in the middle of re-hashing my live set-up and one of the things I have been looking at is the Ivory piano plug-in. I currently use an RD700 which works fine with the L1 but I have lots of other midi stuff going on so I would prefer a plugin piano instead.

I am basically wondering if anyone is currently using it with the L1 and if they like it ok? Any stereo/mono issues? If your using it with MkII are you connecting digitally or via an interface etc etc?

My set-up is a MkII L1 with 2 x B1 and the T1. I use a MacBook Pro 17 either directly into the T1 or via a MOTU 828 Mk3 interface.

Any opinions greatly received.

Cheers

Hi, asylumweb! Welcome to your first post on this L1 message board!

re: Ivory

Here are a couple of links to related discussions you may find of interest (benchmarks, and Clavinova discussions). That latter, in particular, references PianoTeq. The difference (from what I've read) between Ivory and PianoTeq seems to be similar to the differences between most digital pianos and the General Music (GEM) 'modeled' pianos.

I can't speak to the Ivory/PianoTeq differences, but I can say that I prefer the modelled GEM RP/X piano module (hardware) over the RD700. I use the RP/X (MIDI'd to an RD700!) for the basic piano sound, and just use the RD700 for "layering/stereo" additional sounds with the RP/X piano. (What I do is shut off the primary RD700 layer, which uses MIDI channel 1, use that Channel 1 to drive the RP/X, and then use the second RD700 layer to select other voicings, such as the Rhodes, various strings, or 'Pad'.)

When I get around to trying a software-based module, I'll probably start with a 'modeled' approach such as the PianoTeq.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dan Cornett,

Although I prefer Pianoteq over Ivory, there is one gotcha when using Pianoteq with a pro sound company:

FOH engineers usually want a stereo signal from the keys, and Pianoteq, when set to stereo output, does not gracefully collapse to mono. (There's a switch for using Pianoteq in mono, and that of course works quite well.)

Ivory would be a better choice when monitoring a stereo signal in mono. I take analog outputs from a Receptor straight into a T1 or an L1 Classic.

Thanks for the replies, since you mentioned Receptor I'm just wondering how you find it with the L1? Are there any things to look out for re the usual mono stereo debate etc?

Thanks

quote:

Ivory would be a better choice when monitoring a stereo signal in mono. I take analog outputs from a Receptor straight into a T1 or an L1 Classic.

No issues. The Receptor and L1 system is a brilliant combination.

The stereo/mono thing is entirely dependent on how the samples were originally created: how far apart were the mics, what adjustments if any were made to phase, etc. Somewhere on this forum is a thread I started that goes into more detail on the subject.

I usually take L & R outputs from the Receptor into direct boxes, than parallel out of the DIs into two channels on my Classic, or inputs 4 & 5 on the T1. Works great.

In the rare case where the house wants only a mono signal from me, I simply pan the Receptor all the way to one side (or load up only mono samples.)

We have Ivory running on a macbook with it on a external hard drive.
we have only used it live once.
Great for recording but it is a little slow loading and you have to use a interface if you want really good quality.
I have used it with a Apogee duet the best!But we also have a Motu mk3. For live use a keyboard is just alot easier!

Just use Pianoteq, & finish problems with piano .
http://www.pianoteq.com/

This is not sampled based piano with static sound , this is alive sound , & work with bose perfect .