It scrolls fine on my Mac - both with the trackpad and mouse. Scrolling the libraries on Windows, on the other hand, is
. I also use the search feature to get around the scrolling issues.
Is Kontakt the Best Player?
- Thread starter Pedro Camacho
- Start date
It scrolls fine on my Mac - both with the trackpad and mouse. Scrolling the libraries on Windows, on the other hand, is
. I also use the search feature to get around the scrolling issues.
lastmessiah
Member
Yeah, I was gonna say. In what world is Kontakt not proprietary. And not to mention, old and ugly and clunky.
Michel Simons
Senior Member
It scrolls fine on my Mac - both with the trackpad and mouse. Scrolling the libraries on Windows, on the other hand, is
They improved the scrollability some time ago.
KerrySmith
Active Member
I disagree, respectfully. Although a lot of the newer non-NI, cottage-developer sample-playback platforms are still finding their way, at least they are being coded with a focus on how they'll be used in "orchestral" projects, and on modern hardware. Kontakt has been great, but the codebase is so old at this point, it doesn't seem to be nimble enough to easily adapt to changing tech - like being able to leverage NVME/SSD speeds when loading a whole template of orchestral NKIs on new, fast hardware. Some folks with new Mac Pros or Ryzens still think that loading their template still takes too long... and NI has to deal with coding for compatibility with Apple Silicon now? I can't even run Massive X on my souped-up 2012 Mac Pro b/c the CPU doesn't have the AVX-512 instruction set of modern Intel chips. Will Apple Silicon wreck the AVX reliance, as well?
Look, Kontakt was great, and still is really good for a lot of things. But until NI is able to re-code it in a way that gives notable speed, efficiency and ease-of-use improvements (especially in a big Orchestral VI Session/Project) I am willing to hope that the other devs can do better with their projects. Not holding my breath, though.
Look, Kontakt was great, and still is really good for a lot of things. But until NI is able to re-code it in a way that gives notable speed, efficiency and ease-of-use improvements (especially in a big Orchestral VI Session/Project) I am willing to hope that the other devs can do better with their projects. Not holding my breath, though.
Last edited:
jaketanner
Senior Member
The biggest issue I have with proprietary players is the lack of ability to have multiple libraries stacked within one player. If I want to layer BBC with any other library, I need to open two different players. Any Kontakt instrument I just load them in order and done...allows a/b of sounds to be fast and efficient...not to mention it's a sampler too...so if I have a sound I like, I can just sample it in there as a layer.
I think we need both Kontakt, and developer GIUs...So then if developers want to make their own players...at the very least incorporate all the features and functions that are most used within Kontakt so that we are not left having to rethink our workflow. Even Synchron Player which is pretty good, is a bit cumbersome to layer sounds, and no where near the flexibility that Kontakt has.
I think we need both Kontakt, and developer GIUs...So then if developers want to make their own players...at the very least incorporate all the features and functions that are most used within Kontakt so that we are not left having to rethink our workflow. Even Synchron Player which is pretty good, is a bit cumbersome to layer sounds, and no where near the flexibility that Kontakt has.
Kontakt has a lot of benefit for those of us who use a lot of libraries, but for rookies, it can be a very challenging process that's difficult to understand. Consider all the steps involved if you've never done this before. We get a lot of people complaining or confused about it, especially with products like Hip Hop Creator and Realivox Blue, where many customers have never even heard of Kontakt. It would be much easier for them if we had our own player.
mybadmemory
Senior Member
I believe this is totally unavoidable as companies grow. For any smaller developer starting out, not having to develop internal technology and just release libraries on a ready-made platform is great.
However as developers grow, they will undoubtedly come to a point where they want to control the entire experience and path to consumers themselves. Partly to be able to innovate faster, and not be held back by other companies product roadmaps (or lack thereof), and partly to get the full profit themselves, rather than to share it with someone else. We see this in all industries, and it's very understandable from a developer point of view.
However as developers grow, they will undoubtedly come to a point where they want to control the entire experience and path to consumers themselves. Partly to be able to innovate faster, and not be held back by other companies product roadmaps (or lack thereof), and partly to get the full profit themselves, rather than to share it with someone else. We see this in all industries, and it's very understandable from a developer point of view.
Lionel Schmitt
Senior Member
I don't think it's good when a single product dominates an entire market.
The danger is that NI will get lazy because they are the default anyway.
With big developers moving away from Kontakt they might feel forced to revolutionize Kontakt to make it attractive for the rest to stay or some of the others to return, at least for some products maybe.
Competition is good. And these new players will certainly become more and more stable over time.
The benefit of shaking up the market is probably greater on the long run.
The danger is that NI will get lazy because they are the default anyway.
With big developers moving away from Kontakt they might feel forced to revolutionize Kontakt to make it attractive for the rest to stay or some of the others to return, at least for some products maybe.
Competition is good. And these new players will certainly become more and more stable over time.
The benefit of shaking up the market is probably greater on the long run.
szczaw
Senior Member
I can think of few reasons why in-hous sample player makes perfect sense for large and popular developers that can afford to pay for it: piracy prevention, additional revenue through subscription model, implementing library specific features, implementing features that are not found in Kontakt.
xguitaristx
Never trust the living
So much truth to this.
Just look at how long it took EastWest to get PLAY right.
Or take a look at the recent Spitfire player poll. The resuts are overwhemingly in favor of Kontakt.
On the flipside, I can understand if a developer would rather be dependant on their own player, but not at the expense of the customer being their personal guinea pig. They really need to iron their shit out before rolling out a bug infested/inconvenient/ user unfriendly engine.
Do it right, and people will approve.
I'm not saying that Kontakt is perfect, but when a developer releases an engine that's so bad it actually prevents customers from buying their libraries, they should probably re-think some things.
If a developer was smart about it, they'd create an engine that took everything everyone loves about Kontakt, then add even more features that really enhanced the utility of the library.
Film Sounds
New Member
Ugh... At the risk of sounding like a guy who thinks he knows things...
Kontakt is NOT the future.
Innovation disrupts, not following standards. (StaffPad, Infinite Brass, etc.)
VSL has endless features. Stable, but right? No way. Just agile. Hardly the future of sampling.
You should never have to look at a sampler, so a central uniform tool isn't the issue.
UX = Software is like a joke. If you have to explain it, it's not that good.
I read manuals. I like to make use of what I have. But I once designed a DAW/Notation hybrid, fleshed out features, and wasted time being an idealist... every time I got to the sampler, I realized more and more that the ideal UX is to simply not have a sampler GUI at all. Everyone SAYS they want simple, open, free, universal, and stable. Awesome, maybe it can make breakfast too. Simplicity has far more value though.
I care less about GUI and standards and branding in every corner and more about whether the product is any good. If Spitfire sounded as good as Spitfire and as agile as Infinite Brass and it only ran in FL Studio, I'd buy FL Studio today. The sampler isn't nearly as important as workflow. I'm not ranting about Spitfire's agility either. I'm saying that which platforms are used is not nearly as important as whether they are used well.
Open is great for UX and I either do things open or I make it open by ripping it apart. I value having control over my tools. Call me obsessive. But that still matters less than having something work right. I can't control StaffPad. I can't put my sounds in it (wish I could), but I still use StaffPad more than Dorico and S1 more than Cubase. I like all of them in different ways. But the future? The thing companies OUGHT to do?
The platform really isn't the important thing. It's doing what you do as well as you can.
Kontakt is NOT the future.
Innovation disrupts, not following standards. (StaffPad, Infinite Brass, etc.)
VSL has endless features. Stable, but right? No way. Just agile. Hardly the future of sampling.
You should never have to look at a sampler, so a central uniform tool isn't the issue.
UX = Software is like a joke. If you have to explain it, it's not that good.
I read manuals. I like to make use of what I have. But I once designed a DAW/Notation hybrid, fleshed out features, and wasted time being an idealist... every time I got to the sampler, I realized more and more that the ideal UX is to simply not have a sampler GUI at all. Everyone SAYS they want simple, open, free, universal, and stable. Awesome, maybe it can make breakfast too. Simplicity has far more value though.
I care less about GUI and standards and branding in every corner and more about whether the product is any good. If Spitfire sounded as good as Spitfire and as agile as Infinite Brass and it only ran in FL Studio, I'd buy FL Studio today. The sampler isn't nearly as important as workflow. I'm not ranting about Spitfire's agility either. I'm saying that which platforms are used is not nearly as important as whether they are used well.
Open is great for UX and I either do things open or I make it open by ripping it apart. I value having control over my tools. Call me obsessive. But that still matters less than having something work right. I can't control StaffPad. I can't put my sounds in it (wish I could), but I still use StaffPad more than Dorico and S1 more than Cubase. I like all of them in different ways. But the future? The thing companies OUGHT to do?
The platform really isn't the important thing. It's doing what you do as well as you can.
Salorom
Active Member
Pretty muchIt should read: if you can't do it like VSL, stick to Kontakt.
sinkd
AARP Curious Member
This is funny.
RonOrchComp
Senior Member
Not in the same way SINE, PLAY, and the SFA player are, no it is not.
Michael Antrum
Only the good die young....
Not quite sure what you mean by this. VSL Synchron player is very stable for me, never had it crash once yet, and it's very flexible.
Of course it's not the future of sampling - it's not a sampler - it's a sample player....
Paul Cardon
Ninja Otter Music
I think you HAVE to be at least a little worried about what Native Instruments was trying to do with their ecosystem. Komplete Kontrol and NKS are neat as a concept but scary as a standard. The demand people have now for libraries to be NKS and Player compatible, the extra busywork to prepare a library and all the patch previews plus Player fees, the whole "Player" vs. "non-Player" thing that still trips up users, etc.
I think devs were seeing the writing on the wall, that creating a user dependence on NI's slow-moving standards and software was beginning to grab devs by the balls. Hell, Spitfire's ditching Kontakt and they still have the need to make all their new plugins NKS compatible because NI thinks "industry standards" are something that requires everyone to use their exclusive closed software/hardware and they've got enough users hooked on it that it's a bad idea not to.
NKS would be fine on its own, but it wouldn't have succeeded without NI's market dominance, and having devs entire livelihoods also attached to a piece of gradually antiquated software with glacier-like update schedules and then have NKS show up, tightening down a reliance on playing to Native Instruments game, leaves a sour taste.
There are probably devs at NI doing great stuff, in fact, I'm certain of it! It's not easy work. But NI's broader end goal as a company is definitely market dominance, and if they can't keep up on development and updates, not to mention their nearly non-existent support, then do they deserve that hold on the sampling industry?
I think devs were seeing the writing on the wall, that creating a user dependence on NI's slow-moving standards and software was beginning to grab devs by the balls. Hell, Spitfire's ditching Kontakt and they still have the need to make all their new plugins NKS compatible because NI thinks "industry standards" are something that requires everyone to use their exclusive closed software/hardware and they've got enough users hooked on it that it's a bad idea not to.
NKS would be fine on its own, but it wouldn't have succeeded without NI's market dominance, and having devs entire livelihoods also attached to a piece of gradually antiquated software with glacier-like update schedules and then have NKS show up, tightening down a reliance on playing to Native Instruments game, leaves a sour taste.
There are probably devs at NI doing great stuff, in fact, I'm certain of it! It's not easy work. But NI's broader end goal as a company is definitely market dominance, and if they can't keep up on development and updates, not to mention their nearly non-existent support, then do they deserve that hold on the sampling industry?
Last edited:
