# Humanizing



## tslesicki (Aug 22, 2010)

Hi!

I have a quantized midi sequences of staccato and legato string parts. How can I humanize them to make them sound more human but not chaotic? I'm using Logic and I know that there's a Humanize function - any tips how to use it properly?

Thank you in advance! 

Tom


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 22, 2010)

tslesicki @ Sun Aug 22 said:


> Hi!
> 
> I have a quantized midi sequences of staccato and legato string parts. How can I humanize them to make them sound more human but not chaotic? I'm using Logic and I know that there's a Humanize function - any tips how to use it properly?
> 
> ...



Simply select the notes you want to humanize, or select all, and use Transform > Humanize. You can choose to Humanize position, length, velocity etc. by randomizing whatever amount of ticks you like and then repeat the process. I generally randomize only the position and velocity by around +/- 15 ticks.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 22, 2010)

lee @ Sun Aug 22 said:


> C M Dess @ Sun Aug 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



True, Humanize is for down and dirty. But lets say you have done all that for a Vln 1 part and now you want to copy it to Vln 2 and viola with different instruments cause you are in a hurry and don't want to mess with different settings. Humanize comes in really handy.

Also, if you have used Ultrabeat and created a sequence, it will be hard quantized and no setting for quantization will significantly affect it as it was created on a grid, not played in.. Humanize helps in a jiffy.


----------



## Narval (Aug 22, 2010)

tslesicki @ Sun Aug 22 said:


> Hi!
> 
> I have a quantized midi sequences of staccato and legato string parts. How can I humanize them to make them sound more human but not chaotic? I'm using Logic and I know that there's a Humanize function - any tips how to use it properly?
> 
> ...


1. Play each line until it makes musical sense and technically is almost there. 
2. Spot the notes that stick out like sore thumbs.
3. Change those particular notes' velocities, start time, duration, or whatever problem they may have.

Never 

ever

use a "humanize" function. Always play your lines, or, if you want to keep them as they come from a notation program, then better humanize all the notes manually, one by one.


----------



## Narval (Aug 22, 2010)

Yes, of course, "in my own personal opinion" and "the way I personally work," that goes without saying. I think Tom knows that much, he is more intelligent than you seem to imply (should I add "in my personal opinion" or "I could be wrong" ?? :shock: ). You think Tom needs your guidance, protection, and spoonfeeding on how to interpret messages on a board? Who appointed you as a specialist in this particular area? Maybe it's just your usual fault-finding-where-there's-none attitude?

Ok, so, _in my own personal opinion,_ it is better to humanize the notes manually. Are you of the opinion that automatic humanizing is better than manual, human humanizing?

edit


Guy Bacos @ Sun Aug 22 said:


> You come off as a preacher!


And, by saying that without qualificationwink, what do you come off as?


----------



## Narval (Aug 22, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sun Aug 22 said:


> If you would of read my post correctly


Follow your own advice, save some cyberspace. Plant a tree. Adopt a kitty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3R4Pw7lwbg

Me, upset? Commandments?? Moral responsibility??? Influencing people in the wrong direction???? Young readers imperiled????? Dude... Seriously, why so serious? :D


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 22, 2010)

Well it's exactly the kind of answer I expected from you, so let's just say:Nevermind!


----------



## Roque Fort (Aug 22, 2010)

I think that both Guy Bacos and Narval are right in their own way. 

*Guy Bacos understands that* a humanizing function is effective if you apply it intelligently.

*Narval is right in that* you cannot have a true humanized performance if a human being has not been performing the piece.

Both approaches are useful, and there may be other approaches too but, if you just want a quick result, automatic functions can be great.

=====

*By the way, "MORE HUMAN BUT NOT CHAOTIC"?* What's wrong with chaos? And isn't chaos part of being human?

Remember what the great *Austro-Hungry composer, Kaiserjägerupcjo V7*, had to say about these deep matters in 1769, approximately:


"_Under no circumstance Software should retain the title of Serious if We cannot be given the proper grace of employment of a noble Chaos Button. He who thinks different, will pay with the modest sum of his Head_". >8o 


Apparently, at that time nobody disagreed.


----------



## Narval (Aug 22, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Well it's exactly the kind of answer I expected from you, so let's just say:Nevermind!


You expected from me?!? Good one!
Nevermind yourself!

edit
Roque Fort, you crack me up! Best first post I've seen in a while! Welcome to the flying circus! :D


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 22, 2010)

Roque Fort, my issue isn't who's right or wrong.

But anyway, I won't dwell any longer on this, I have to get back to music.


----------



## bryla (Aug 23, 2010)

Try humanizing by . . . 10 instead.

. . 1 10 seems pretty high.

Narval: the reason to choose computer generated humanizing is because it's 100% random. A human humanizing (wow strange paradox) will always be guided by mental systems and habbits.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 23, 2010)

Guy, you know people can look at our accomplishments, such as they are, and then try to look at the accomplishments of those who not only disagree with us but do so disrespectfully and decide which advice they want to take. It really is not worth aggravating yourself, oui, mon ami?


----------



## tslesicki (Aug 23, 2010)

bryla @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Try humanizing by . . . 10 instead.
> 
> . . 1 10 seems pretty high.
> 
> Narval: the reason to choose computer generated humanizing is because it's 100% random. A human humanizing (wow strange paradox) will always be guided by mental systems and habbits.



Thank you, I will try . . . 10 and . . . 15 as Ashermusic suggested. Dziękuję


----------



## Narval (Aug 23, 2010)

Tom, I have considered that your tracks might come from a notation program, so I recommended, for best results, that you change those events manually, according to your own taste and way to phrase the music. In my experience, automatic humanizers are either random or based on bad algorithms, which consistently result in musical meaninglessness. I have tried so many scripts, round robins, "humanizers," and they have all completely disappointed me. In short, they all suck. Big time. All of them. And that's because they are all based on non-musical principles. (and just so you don't take it as a Biblical Commandment, that's only _my own personal opinion._  )



bryla @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Narval: the reason to choose computer generated humanizing is because it's 100% random. A human humanizing (wow strange paradox) will always be guided by mental systems and habbits.


My reason to AVOID automatic-humanizers is precisely their randomness (and, sometimes, the even worse algorithms). Do you think randomness is desirable? Given that (a) players don't perform randomly but meaningfully, according to patterns similar to those used in speech, and (b) a midi track is a performance - why should you choose randomness over intentional, meaningful, purposeful changes?

And Roque Fort, to answer your "What's wrong with chaos? And isn't chaos part of being human?" -
1. Chaos is anti-human, that's what's wrong with chaos. Give in to chaos, and humanity diminishes. Fight chaos with order, goodwill, and purpose, and humanity grows.
2. No, chaos is not part of being human but the opposite of being human. There is nothing random about being human. And what stays at the heart of humanity is: order, reason, purposefulness, meaningfulness, development, growth. Which is precisely what makes music the most human activity - it's based on the very same principles. (should I add that disclaimer again?:D)


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 23, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Guy, you know people can look at our accomplishments, such as they are, and then try to look at the accomplishments of those who not only disagree with us but do so disrespectfully and decide which advice they want to take. It really is not worth aggravating yourself, oui, mon ami?



I hear you, unfortunately Narval, not only disrespectful but a relentless pain in the ..... as we have both seen, seems to keep getting his kicks like this.

But yes, we both have better things to do.


----------



## Hannes_F (Aug 23, 2010)

He surely knows how to express himself in an unpleasant way but concerning the hard facts I am with Narval here. There is a world of micro-timing in live playing that is neither strictly to the grid nor random but meaningful ... and seems to escape even some of the otherwise best mockup artists.

In another thread there was a question whether working dominantly with samples influences the writing - in terms of timing it certainly does (I am not meaning anybody personally here, these are just my observations from my daily work).


----------



## Narval (Aug 23, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> unfortunately Narval, not only disrespectful but a relentless pain in the ..... as we have both seen, seems to keep getting his kicks like this.


Master Bacos, 
with all due respect, 
you called for it. 

And you will get the mentioned 
relentlessly painful kicks in the ass 
each time you will get out of your way 
and try to play the teacher with me - 
it's a promise. 

You better give up your personal vendetta 
and stay with the topics.


----------



## muk (Aug 23, 2010)

Hannes don't you quantize even the little exposed parts in a mockup? I tend to play all the parts in and use humanizing as a timesaver on unconspicious parts which leaves me with more time for fiddling around with the foreground lines


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 23, 2010)

Hannes,

That's not the point at all. I'm the first one to encourage live playing as much as possible, and would think you know that Hannes, from me being a pianist, and I think you could hear it in my demos, no? I'm talking about something else, but like so often the wrong message is heard. So the hell with it. I'll keep doing what has been working well for me, and let others do what works best for them, even though I'm doing it all wrong according to Narval.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 23, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> There is a world of micro-timing in live playing that is neither strictly to the grid nor random but meaningful ... and seems to escape even some of the otherwise best mockup artists.


Possibly, but a somewhat pointless consideration anyway because samples — especially woodwind, brass and strings samples — aren't all trimmed exactly alike at the start. Some (appear to) respond more quickly/slowly than others, thus making any guidelines/advice/methodology about humanization or quantization completely useless.
Play a 16th-note staccato ostinato with a round-robin patch from most (strings)libraries, quantize it, and you'll hear that some of it just won't sound quantized. Because of the slight differences in trimming at the start of the samples.

Musically meaningful micro-timings with sample-based instruments? No, I don't think so. 
(Things are a bit different when programming drums or percussion instruments of course. But even with those instruments, there's still no mathematically consistent trimming of the samples.)

Anyway. 

A related trick which often yields very good results with certain types of music (and which doesn't suffer from the artificial humanization effect) is to record parts much slower than they will be played back. Say, record parts at 80bpm for a piece that has a tempo of 130bpm. The only thing you might have to do (after restoring the tempo to the desired value) is to increase the gate length of the notes, otherwise they might sound unnaturally short.

_


----------



## Stevie (Aug 23, 2010)

I was waiting for someone to point that out Piet


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 23, 2010)

If for each instrument you record (via keyboard/computer/sequencer), a track you are as competent as the instrumentalist in question of 30 years of experience, example, a professional clarinetist, and you can play live with all the articulations in real time including all the expression a human clarinetist would do, then I'd say, yes! But you'd need that competence and ability for every single instrument of the orchestra. I think it's safe to say that neither technology or human capability is there. So let's not over rate the live playing thing. I make exception with the piano, because you are playing the entire orchestra at the same time and relatively little tweaking is necessary, so I prefer live only for that instrument.

For important melodic orchestral passages, a live performance is important, but what's much more important, at least for me, is how you tweak this melody to give it the maximum expression with the tools you are using, which will vary from one library to another, as re-peat pointed out. I feel I have the ability to replay the piece in my head and tweak it as I'd like to hear it, I think that's the best way to work. This is a world which you must adapt constantly solutions to work with the samples and softwares out there. This is why you cannot be a purist and say the ONLY way is to..... Adaptability is much more important here.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 23, 2010)

Audio examples please! 

Did you know, for example: All staccato strings are always recorded (for a sample 
library) in a tempo. The conductor counts: one-two-three-four... .

He can do this in the tempo 120 , in 80 or in 150. And the recorded results are 
sounding very ò	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£	î   â£ 	î   â£!	î   â£"	î   â£#	î   â£$	î   â£%	î   â£&	î   â£'	î   â£(	î   â£)	î   â£*	î   â£+	î


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 23, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Actually, I don't see any reason why this should not be possible with midi instruments. When I am recording midi I always practise until I get the timing right, and if that includes some different latencies this is something my mind has learned after the fifth run-through.



Simply not worth the effort in my opinion as the differences will be indiscernable to anyone but the creator.

I guarantee you that I can either quantize or humanize plus quantize in Logic so musically that you would not know I did so next to one where I practiced it so I had it down cold, played it in and did not quantize.


----------



## Narval (Aug 23, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> the only occasion I ever use the quantize function is when transferring a "played-in" mockup into sheet music.


That should be called the de-humanizing button. :D 

Which is the exact opposite of what Tom was asking for: he's got midi tracks coming from notation input, and he wants to humanize them. One primary question is: does randomizing equal humanizing? (because that's what the so-called "humanize" functions really are: randomizers.) In other words: randomizing quantized tracks, does that make them sound more human? My answer is: no, on the contrary. Randomizers only make them sound even more meaningless.

With samples, we already have a built-in degree of randomness, as re-peat pointed out - perfectly quantized music, when played on samples, doesn't sound perfectly quantized. Thing is, it still sounds mechanical though, because the differences among the samples' starting points are not as big as to override the mechanical feel. And here comes Tom's question: How to get rid of that mechanical feel? I can see three ways to do it (in the descending order of effectiveness): 
1) manually ( = meaningfully)
2) using the randomize function and then tweaking only what sounds really bad ( = meaninglessly),
3) using the randomize function alone ( = meaninglessly).
Pick one, depending on (a) how much time you want to invest and (b) how good is good enough for you.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 23, 2010)

I am with Jay here. And I would be ready to make the same challenge.

But I hate repeating myself, and I thought it was something very important to consider, but apparently I'm the only one who think so?

Just to recap. When you play live you are playing with a single articulation most of the time, if afterwards people don't bother looking for better articulations for various notes and phrasing, then we have another problem. But anyway, when I play live, I will first play it with a legato patch, but the real phrasing is born as I improve it with new articulations, much more refined than the legato patch alone. And it is not unusual to have to move a few notes a tiny bit left or right. What counts is the final result, and if the final result is a lot more expressive than an untouched live version that you practiced for days, who cares. 

As long as we are dealing with samples alone, I would challenge anyone.

Jay Bacal is a master at this, he doesn't play live, but his results are surprisingly live sounding.

When people listen to your music, they don't know and don't care how it was done, just how it sounds at the end.


----------



## Hannes_F (Aug 23, 2010)

germancomponist @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Audio examples please!



OK sir, I grabbed the Mozart recordings by the Alban Berg Quartet in their Teldec era and just pressed forward until I had a beginning with chords KV575, 3rd movement. I could have taken any other recording:

http://www.strings-on-demand.com/docs/M ... etTest.mp3

To see what I mean you will probably need to download the high resolution picture here:

http://www.strings-on-demand.com/docs/M ... timing.jpg







Basically what we hear at the beginning are four pickup notes and then six equal chords played by V1, V2 and Va. Mockupper's nightmare, so here is what we can learn from the greats (I drew in a few lines in order to show what one can actually hear once one develops the ear for it):

- Blue line: The first violin is leading, so it starts actually a tiny bit before the cello.
- Yellow line: This is the first downbeat of the piece in case you look for orientation.
- Red lines: Still the first violin leads, so second violin and viola are either at the same time or later.
- Green line: Oops, the second violin is before the first one. Random? Chaos?
No, if you listen to the recording you realize that this is an accent because he wants to give the 6/8 timing an orientation on the fourth beat, making sure everybody understands this is a three beats meter. It has a reason why it is there
- Side note: See how there is a little bigger break in the 1st violin after the first downbeat (after the yellow line) compared to the others. This is where actually the basic meter is established, but not on a fixed grid, more with some inertia.
- Second side note: See how on the 4th F# (green line) the 1st violin actually plays even a little later than the beat. He wanted to trick the audience a bit since if you hear the piece for the first time this could easily be the place where after three equal notes something else happens. So with a little delay ... there come three equal notes again.
As a consequence, since he had a different idea than the 2nd violin, this is the only chord that is not really tight. Not because of random but because of different opinions ... which makes it interesting. They meet then at the second round.
- Third side note: Listen how the tempo subtly changes in this recording from phrase to phrase.

Now, these all are very tiny nuances and perhaps nobody here gives a rats *ss for them. But these nuances are my world of musicality, I can't help it. For me they make or brake the interpretation and the recording.

You could compare that to facial expressions. If you have the sense for it you can see the mood of other people transported by what are objectively very little changes in the form of their eyelids or mouth corners, sometimes even with a distance of many meters. And that is what it works like in such an ensemble - they are not sitting at a table and making a master plan like "let's delay this note by that amount" and such (which could actually happen but only for learning it on an example). It is more like an intelligent conversation between, and the microtiming is just another natural and almost unconcious part of expression within the ensemble.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 23, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Aug 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Audio examples please!
> ...



If those are your standards, Hannes, than I congratulate you for your commitment to that high a standard.

Most of us I am guessing, at least those of us doing commercial work, are not using sample libraries for works on the level of Mozart, nor are we striving for a level of excellence of performance of the artistry of the Berg Quartet.

We just want to make it sound damn good sounding work for the project/film, and please the client while walking away proud of what we did.

Quantizing/humanizing is IMHO not antithetical to doing just that.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 23, 2010)

Well not to sound like a smart ass Hannes, but this is basic knowledge to me since I work and deal with that particular aspect but in a more practical way when I do my programming. 

So what are we suppose to do, get 8 keyboards and have 8 guys each play a part? Not sure that's very practical, cause this interpretation is the result of a group playing together after much practice. And I see your point, but you have to make it practical as well.


----------



## Narval (Aug 23, 2010)

Brilliant analysis, Hannes!




Hannes_F @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> ...
> It has a reason why it is there


Precisely. It is reason/purpose based order that makes music sound human. I'm amazed at musicians advocating and trying to humanize music by randomizing it. Randomness = meaninglessness. Meaninglessness is inhuman.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 23, 2010)

Narval @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Brilliant analysis, Hannes!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ridiculous position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleatoric_music


----------



## nikolas (Aug 23, 2010)

I do think that noone seems to offering an 100% insight that humanizing = random result from the computer. But it does work when you are on a tight schedule (or actually too bored to alter individual notes manually). 

I think that a very simple experiment could solve all questions.

Let's have 10 members in here play ten semi-random chords (because as we know we humans do not act fully randomnly) and record them in midi. With gaps and all. Then let's see if there is any statistic tendency to those chords. Perhaps the pinky tends to play first in the right hand? Or another issue maybe? 

If there is something it could be found under this simple experiment. If not then it's all random for chord playing on the piano.

But really, apart from the silly experiment above, why is it so difficult to agree that the 'ultimate truth' is somewhere in the middle? Yes, not all is random, yes, random helps, etc...

(Thanks Hannes for your post!)


----------



## Narval (Aug 23, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Narval @ Mon Aug 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Brilliant analysis, Hannes!
> ...


My position is ridiculous because some composers think they are creating aleatoric works of art??? Now THAT is what I would call a ridiculous position. Also bad, bad logic. And you say you're a Logic trainer? :mrgreen: 

"Aleatoric music" is a completely different discussion that doesn't have anything to do with making quantized midi sound human-played. Try to stay with the topic. Hannes has opened this discussion to a very interesting direction, which you, besides this silly diversion, are treating in a very obtuse manner.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 23, 2010)

Just to have something clear, I never humanize, I just quantize slightly certain orchestral parts and I agree the humanize effect is so, so. But are you putting humanize and quantize in the same bag Hannes?


----------



## re-peat (Aug 23, 2010)

Narval, what's completely preposterous about your statement is that you assume even a hint of authentic 'human' identity in a sample-based performance. There isn't, you know. Not one bit. It's impossible. It's all fake, ersatz and make-believe. Nothing human about it whatsoever. Not in the sounds, not in the way they're recorded, not in their purpose-in-life (sneekily posing for something else). A sample-based music production is just one big, pathetic fraud from start to finish, from top to bottom and from front to back.
And you can't de-humanize what isn't human to begin with, right? So, I really don't see where the 'dehumanizing' harm lies in quantizing the odd part or introducing some minuscule random shifts in the position of certain notes.
(Besides, like I said before: there's already PLENTY of randomness in the inconsistency with which samples are trimmed, edited and produced.)

I'll happily quantize and 'humanize' whenever my ears and my musical insight tells me to.

_


----------



## Narval (Aug 23, 2010)

Wow. And I thought _I_ was a bit too radical... :mrgreen: 

So, what makes my statement "completely preposterous" is your belief that sample based performance is a fraud that can never result in meaningful, human felt performance. Is that what you're saying?


----------



## artsoundz (Aug 23, 2010)

wut Piet sed. and it's MISTER Pathetic fraud to you,pal! I Kid. 

I've never had a philosophical problem with quantize or humanize. After all. we are making recordings for the most part-the responsibiltiy is to do whatever it takes to satisfy your ear. Even Wendy Carlos once said (paraphrasing here) "....if it isn't working then quantize for heavens sakes"....

Whereas in jazz,for example, it's more about documenting a performance. Even then. I would not hesitate to help a part w the Q. Countless Jazz greats did the equivalent with cutting up tape or overdubbing. 

Classical orchestras overdub parts as well. It's not quantizing but it's philosophically the same. make a recording the best possible way.


----------



## Hannes_F (Aug 23, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> If those are your standards, Hannes, than I congratulate you for your commitment to that high a standard.



Well sometimes it can be a burden to understand why some interpretations and recordings are so good because of course as a violinist there comes a point when you begin to measure with the same scale what you personally do and that can be very hard. I am living with the conciousness of the the gap for 25 years now and still struggling for making it a litte smaller per day. But most times it is just pure inspiration to listen to these recordings.

One reason however why I picked these recordings is this: Nearly every strings player in a professional orchestra has played string quartet at least for a while and this is where he or she has been trained for these sort of subtilities. They are the bread and butter of ensemble playing (and of course every prof. string player knows these Alban Berg recordings, too). So this all is something that is going on in every real orchestra under the surface, whether you notice it or not.



> Just to have something clear, I never humanize, I just quantize slightly certain orchestral parts and I agree the humanize effect is so, so. But are you putting humanize and quantize in the same bag Hannes?



No, I see the benefit of quantizing by a certain amount if time burns, of course. However I would love if at least _composers _(I mean, you should be the most musical persons on the planet, huh?) would appreciate that orchestral music feels not very comforteable on a grid, and randomly deviating note starts may help to make it less static and introduce a pleasing swarm effect at ensemble note transitions but that is about all.

Regarding the practical aspect, I have to answer this question myself too when doing multitrack recordings. This is not so different from recording multiple stems ... you have to start at some point and try avoid painting yourself into a corner. This is why I take at least half an hour for every project before I even touch an instrument for reading the score, trying to understand where the important points are and where such mentioned deviations from a strict timing could be necessary. For me this the most important time of the project because if I overlooked some timing related issue in that stage it is hardly possible to put it in afterwards. So in a way I play head radio while reading the score just like a conductor does and plan in advance what will happen. Of course that is only my answer to the problem. The equivalent in midi world would perhaps be to work out a really detailled and naturally flowing tempo track.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 23, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 23 said:
> 
> 
> > If those are your standards, Hannes, than I congratulate you for your commitment to that high a standard.
> ...



Understood, but when you apply this approach to MIDI, which is limited to 127 steps, this is where I think the analogy breaks down.

Let me ask you in a non-confrontational way, please point me to the MIDI recording you have heard where you would say " it is just pure inspiration to listen to these recordings."

I have head some quite good ones but none that I would describe that way personally.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 23, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Narval, what's completely preposterous about your statement is that you assume even a hint of authentic 'human' identity in a sample-based performance. There isn't, you know. Not one bit. It's impossible. It's all fake, ersatz and make-believe. Nothing human about it whatsoever. Not in the sounds, not in the way they're recorded, not in their purpose-in-life (sneekily posing for something else). A sample-based music production is just one big, pathetic fraud from start to finish, from top to bottom and from front to back.
> And you can't de-humanize what isn't human to begin with, right? So, I really don't see where the 'dehumanizing' harm lies in quantizing the odd part or introducing some minuscule random shifts in the position of certain notes.
> (Besides, like I said before: there's already PLENTY of randomness in the inconsistency with which samples are trimmed, edited and produced.)
> 
> ...



It pains me to write this but once again, Piet is spot on


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 23, 2010)

Suffer then!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 23, 2010)

Suffer then!


----------



## Narval (Aug 23, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> Narval, what's completely preposterous about your statement is that you assume even a hint of authentic 'human' identity in a sample-based performance. There isn't, you know. Not one bit. It's impossible. It's all fake, ersatz and make-believe. Nothing human about it whatsoever. Not in the sounds, not in the way they're recorded, not in their purpose-in-life (sneekily posing for something else). A sample-based music production is just one big, pathetic fraud from start to finish, from top to bottom and from front to back.
> And you can't de-humanize what isn't human to begin with, right? So, I really don't see where the 'dehumanizing' harm lies in quantizing the odd part or introducing some minuscule random shifts in the position of certain notes.
> (Besides, like I said before: there's already PLENTY of randomness in the inconsistency with which samples are trimmed, edited and produced.)
> 
> ...


That was a very interesting post, deserving more than a lazy "spot-on" remark!

So, re-peat, there is "no hint of authentic 'human' identity in a sample-based performance." Why? Probably, because the very nature of the medium prevents any musically meaningful interaction between a player and a physical instrument. Thus, the player is not making any sound, he's just triggering disconnected recordings made by some other people, some other time, in some other place, on some other purpose. In this sense, I can see where you're coming from when you call this type of performance "fake" and "fraud," since those recordings (samples) are "posing for something else" - the physical instruments, and the midi performance itself is posing for something else - an orchestral performance.

The only problem is that, everything human-related stands for something else. Everything. Can you think of anything human-related that just stands for itself? Playing a cello, does that stands for itself? Moving the bow and the fingers on strings, that surely stands for something else. And that "something-else" stands for another "something-else." And so on. My point is: standing for something else doesn't necessarily mean fake. It could mean that I only have these particular means (cello, words, paint, samples, etc.) to hint to "something-else" that I cannot otherwise bring to your attention. Is that inauthentic? Fake? Fraud?

Imagine Bach playing his organ in that church.
Picture those pipes there, cut to various size and shapes so as to produce certain sounds - like pre-recorded one-note samples. 
Then, the air pumped into the system - like electricity through the computer. 
Bach himself, pressing his fingers and feet against those keys and pedals, thus allowing the air to pass through certain pipes, which, as they're triggered, begin to "play" their pre-established one-note "recordings." 
But guess what? Because of the constant air flux, no dynamic control - no "velocity."
And, because of the poor mechanics - the timing is kind of coarse.
What kind of performance is that?
To add insult to injury, the assembled sound, the music, stands for something else - his love of God, his inner universe finding its way out into the material world, his need to bring food on the table, simply polyphonic/harmonic exercises made up on the spot out of pure intellectual curiosity, etc.

Not human?

Inauthentic?

Fake?

Fraud?


----------



## Revson (Aug 23, 2010)

re-peat @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> I'll happily quantize and 'humanize' whenever my ears and my musical insight tells me to.
> 
> _


...and by so doing imbue your sample-based work with your own humanity, as real as any "art" work. Yes, a different medium than live ensemble playing. But "ersatz," "devoid of humanity"? I don't think so.

Your mock-ups that i've heard Piet, sound just like you. Distinctive, personal, specific. Meticulous. And not solely (or even mostly) in the composition...but in the (sample-based) execution.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 23, 2010)

Piet was making a point. He considers himself an artist and while I have no affection for him or much respect for him as a person based on how I have encountered him on forums, I do believe he approaches his musical work with as much skill and humanity as he can muster.

He may be well engaging in hyperbole as he sees things in black and white but the essence of what he says is true. Synthesizers were designed to create unique sounds that real instruments could not produce. Samples were created for the expressed purpose of emulating something real. They are triggered through MIDI which has a very limited amount of range of expression, far less than even a not so skilled instrumentalist, so its ability to sound human is extremely limited.

So quantized or not, humanized or not, essentially what we have is humanity emulation. If we bring our talent and humanity to the task with sincerity, there will be some degree of success at this, depending on the samples, our talent, and our skill level at manipulating them. 

But no one can play a sampled cello as "humanly" as Dennis Karmazyn plays a real cello and quantization or not does not alter that fact any significant amount.

If it makes one feel that they are creating more humanly by not quantizing or humanizing, than that is fine, but as far as how the end result actually sounds to the listener, IMHO the difference will be so negligible that they will be no more moved by the unquantized version than the skillfully quanitzed or humanized version.


----------



## Roque Fort (Aug 23, 2010)

Hey forumites, you've been my source of inspiration. I was having trouble finding an interesting title to name my music and now you've given me lots of them! Have a look. And see if you find them useful too,... they are your own words. These titles are still a work in progress. And I still hope to collect some more.

======================================================
LIST OF POSSIBLE TITLES FOR MY RECENT MUSIC
(ALL OF THEM UNWILLINGLY CONTRIBUTED BY GENEROUS FORUMITES)
======================================================

**Get the "human" touch*

**Humanize is for down and dirty*

**Never ever humanize* :twisted: (SPECIAL NOTICE: this one was the seed of chaos)

**I've been doing it all wrong (all these years)*

**The real work begins (with my personal humanizing)*

**Manual human humanizing*

**Maybe you don't care*

**Moral responsibility* :evil: (SPECIAL NOTICE: this one was another seed of chaos)

**Seriously why so serious*

**Let's just say: Nevermind!*

**Nothing can beat (human performance)*

**They all suck. Big time. All of them*

**In my own personal opinion*

**Give in to chaos*

**Humanity diminishes*

**The heart of humanity is: order*

**A relentless pain*

**The hell with it*

**The conductor counts: one-two-three-four...*

**Live instrument*

**Differences will be indiscernable to anyone but the creator*

**De-humanizing button*

**Humanize them*

**Override the mechanical feel*

**Pick one (depending on how much time you want to invest)*

**I hate repeating myself*

**I hate repeating myself*

**I hate repeating myself*

**A single articulation (most of the time)*

**They don't know (and don't care how it was done)*

**Mockupper's nightmare*

**So here is (what we can learn from the greats)*

**Random? Chaos?*

**Trick the audience (a bit)*

**We just want to make it sound damn good sounding work* (SPECIAL NOTICE: sic)

**Please the client (while walking away proud of what we did)*

**Meaninglessness is inhuman*

**Ridiculous position*

**Pinky tends to play first*

**Bad bad logic*

**I never humanize*

**Just one big, pathetic fraud*

**Happily quantize*

**Whatever it takes (to satisfy your ear)*

**That can be very hard*

**Bread and butter*

**Under the surface (whether you notice it or not)*

**Hardly possible (to put it in afterwards)*

**I have head some quite good ones* (SPECIAL NOTICE: sic)

**Suffer then!*

**Player is not making any sound*

**Bach playing his organ (in that church)*

======================================================


----------



## Narval (Aug 23, 2010)

:D :D :D 

Pure awesomeness!

(you can add it to the list)

((and you can add that to the list too)) :D

Oh man... I laughed so hard I cried.


edit
My favorite (so far): 
**Whatever it takes (to satisfy your ear)*
:mrgreen:


----------



## tslesicki (Aug 24, 2010)

Guys,

thank you very much for those wonderful replies, it was a very informative read. I agree with re-peat - the samples are not trimmed perfectly and this somehow helps to add some imperfections out of a box. I've decided to humanize the staccato parts as Ashermusic and bryla suggested because there are way to many notes to tweak by hand. If legato needs some further tweaking, I'll do it by hand.

We recorded this parts with a small string ensemble a while ago and I got the audio files from the studio. Here's a screenshot showing the studio recording of a real violin and the same part played by samples. Can you guess which track is real? 







Full size here: http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/8151/vicl.jpg

One more thing... We hear a lot more than our audience. I remember my friend showing me a track and saying that it's great to have an orchestra on a CD because it sounds so much more emotional. The point is, the track was done 100% with samples. Most people just don't hear that.
I've once read on this forum that somebody's legato isn't quite realistic. It's great that we want to improve our tracks and realism of our mockups but we are the only ones that can hear than improvement. The rest just doesn't care. Of course if the music is good.

Thank you for the feedback, I really appreciate it 

Best regards,

Tom


----------



## Roque Fort (Aug 24, 2010)

OK Narval, my LIST will have to keep growing...so much inspiration...thanks!

=========================================================

NEW ITEMS TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST OF POSSIBLE TITLES

**Pure awesomeness!* :o 

**So hard I cried* :cry: 

=========================================================


----------



## lee (Aug 24, 2010)

I think there´s one aspect people tend to forget:

There´s a huge benefit in recording live compared to drawing notes in the pianoroll/drawing cc envelopes IF the composer has piano playing skills. It´s fun! To "play" the virtual instrument, get instant response from the samples as you play and just enjoy playing/recording it.

Now I`m not talking about the result being better or worse, I`m talking about how to be inspired by the composing process.

There´s nothing wrong with the pianoroll/step edit method, and I´m sure it can be as much "fun" as the live input mode, but myself I just love playing/improvising live to the tracks I´ve already recorded, it´s what brings me the most inspiration.

I also do alot of non 100% quantization, pianoroll editing, changing keyswitches, cc envelopes etc, but if I had the skills, it would be awsome to be able to do as much as possible in realtime. Just because of the fun of it!

/Johnny


----------



## nikolas (Aug 24, 2010)

lee @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> I think there´s one aspect people tend to forget:
> 
> There´s a huge benefit in recording live compared to drawing notes in the pianoroll/drawing cc envelopes IF the composer has piano playing skills. It´s fun! To "play" the virtual instrument, get instant response from the samples as you play and just enjoy playing/recording it.


One thing that people should remember, is that a performer is not a composer and vise versa. 

Performers will offer their personal opinion, most often better than that of the composer, on how the work should sound.

I'm very fond of the recordings others have done of my works, rather than my own limited somehow recordings!


----------



## re-peat (Aug 24, 2010)

Narval @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> So, what makes my statement "completely preposterous" is your belief that sample based performance is a fraud that can never result in meaningful, human felt performance. Is that what you're saying?


What I'm saying is that there is something touchingly misguided (or, to use its proper medical term, deeply idiotic) in singing the praises of human performance, expressive articulation and elevated musicmaking, while at the same time ignoring something as fundamental as the a-musical, innate sterility and inevitable dead-ness of stitching samples together. This artificiality, of samples-posing-as-real-instruments, makes concepts like realism and human-like performance a complete and total absurdity, from the very start. Refusing or being unable to recognize/accept that fact, is, in my view, preposterous, yes.

It's like those many discussions that finds people wondering which reverb might provide the best 'realism'. Or people using the ToddAO IR in the sad hope that some of the magic of that place (and the music that was recorded there) will somehow rub off on their sample-based concoctions ... As if an IR has to offer anything more than the illusion of space. You can't 'add' or inject realism (or any human-like musical quality) into a production. It's either there, or it isn't. And with samples, it certainly isn't.

I say: if you're working with samples (samples in a simulating capacity, I mean), it doesn't matter. Reverb, quantization, humanization, ... it just does not matter. All you can do is accept the artificiality of the premise, the inferiority of your tools, and try your best to make things sound as acceptable as you can. Humanize, quantize, trim, edit, ... just do whatever it takes. (Either that, or, much better: exploit the intrinsic artificalness as _an integer musical ingredient_ — an approach, which, to me, is VASTLY superior and much more musically valid than the concept of a mock-up.) Because mocked-up music is condemned to be fundamentally flawed anyway — both musically and technically —, even before you've recorded a single note, simply because its philosphy, its building-bricks and its methods-of-assembly are of an essentialy untrue and unauthentic nature.
You simply can't use a set-of-samples-posing-as-a-clarinet instead of a real clarinet, without there being some very serious repercussions. One of them is that you have to forgo the idea of (1) an organic and authentic sounding instrument and (2) a realistic, human-like and truly expressive performance. 

And the fact that a sample-based performance may be quantized and then algorithmically humanized is MUCH less of a pleasure-killer (musically speaking) than the fact that its core identity and prime aspirations are completely fake to begin with.

As for the comparison with Bach playing the organ: utter bulldroppings. Bach never played (or wrote for) the organ with the idea that it would behave or come out sounding like an entirely different instrument (even though the organ has several registers with timbrally associative qualities). No, he played the organ totally recognizing/accepting/exploiting the singular identy and character of the instrument, making full use of its many powers and also incorporating its many limitations into the fabric of his music. Bach never IGNORED the instrument he chose to write for. And therein lies the fundamental difference with us, the mock-up species of musicians. Bach wasn't delusional about the identity of his instrument(s). We are. We fool ourselves into thinking we're working with a real instruments, when in fact we're working with little snippets of static digital audio which we treat to a whole range of algorithmic and electronic processes. And then we expect — not without a embarrassing amount of foolish disdain, I might add — the results to sound somewhat 'human' and believable? Complete and tragicomical nonsense, if you ask me.

_


----------



## lee (Aug 24, 2010)

nikolas @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> lee @ Tue Aug 24 said:
> 
> 
> > I think there´s one aspect people tend to forget:
> ...



I´m not sure, but you may have misunderstood what I meant.  Or I may have completely misunderstood your response.

When I wrote "recording live", I meant pressing record in the sequencer and playing live on the midi keyboard.

Maybe you thought I meant recording audio of instruments playing live?

/Johnny


----------



## Roque Fort (Aug 24, 2010)

///////////////////////////////////////////

tslesicki, let me guess...

>>> track A is the mockup :| 
>>> track B is the recording o/~ 

///////////////////////////////////////////

tslesicki, what you wrote was this:

"[...] _I can do some pretty realistic-sounding strings with right dynamics but they are bit to perfect _*rhythmically*. [...]. _So, how can I add that little touch of human imperfections? _[...].

*So the issue is RHYTHM!* Am I wrong? Hmmm...if the issue is rhythm, many things can be done, but they are not easy! 

Composers and performers spend DECADES working on rhythm issues, as you know. Think of jazz...all those devoted musicians feeling the music as it moves and making constant corrections. Not everyone can do that if they do not spend a good amount of time with their instruments. Years and patience.


Luckily, Hannes_F has already mentioned something important during his analysis, he writes:

"_Listen how the tempo subtly changes in this recording from phrase to phrase_."

(Thanks Hannes_F. I notice you must love music).


Hannes_F analyses the fragment and he notices that the phrases contain tempo variations, a way of tempo breathing. This is what you may need then. ADD *TEMPO CHANGES* (ACCORDING TO HOW YOU FEEL THE MUSIC, ACCORDING TO PHRASES).

But the solution I offer is poor. Just telling somebody "add tempo changes" is not helpful. We may find useful to having knowledge of a few things in order to make tempo changes something valuable. We need to know HOW to do it.

Well, each musician has its own way of dealing with rhythm and, also, the size of the ensemble is an important variable...few musicians offer more possibilities than 120 musicians.

####################################################
But here we always seem to need a *starting point and a practical approach*:

:arrow: FOR *INTENSE* PASSAGES, *INCREASE* (A BIT, AND GRADUALLY) THE TEMPO.
:arrow: FOR *CALM* PASSAGES, *DECREASE* (A BIT, AND GRADUALLY) THE TEMPO.
####################################################

My rules are just that, rules. Nothing "universal" in them, I guess! And I know that they are highly "square" but they come from my own experiences with music. I don't apply these rules all the time. Think of these rules as my ackward way of transmitting information clearly in a few words... :idea: 8bit depth ideas :idea: ! :wink: 


*************************************************************

lee says:
"_I`m not talking about the result being better or worse, I`m talking about how to be inspired by the composing process_."

Your words are important. They remind me of a blues musician who said that musicians don't retire, and that a musician who retires is because he/she doesn't have music inside anymore. But there's something curious here, Van Gogh retired. He felt that he had painted everything that he needed to paint and that that was it. Amazing! Years of painting that seemed like an obsession and all of a sudden goodbye painting.

*************************************************************

nikolas says:
"_a performer is not a composer and vise versa_"

I understand, as you do, that there are performers and composers. But I also understand that there are a lot of variants. And that is only if you consider traditional repertoire. When you take into account technology, sometimes you find yourself having to share both the composer role and the performer role with some performing/composing software/hardware.

By the way, I like your statement: "I'm very fond of the recordings others have done of my works, rather than my own limited somehow recordings!". Anyone could think this may show you humility, and it does, but it may also show something more about you (and musicians like you)...it shows you are an EAR-OVER-IDEA person, a truly understanding musician. Cool!

*************************************************************

re-peat says:
"_Utter bulldroppings_".

Please, *re-peat*, repeat that! Hahahahahahah.......! 

It appears that we've got a revel here, he's revelled against the commercial tyranny of samples! Kill him! He's the sample world Spartacus...*Re-peatspartacus!*

Good news! A new realistic, human, and expressive sample library has been released, it's called Roman Samples. For some extra payment, you can also buy the Coliseum series. 

And the Emperor reverberation engine, a truly authentic experience. And don't forget that you can also buy the remarkable Roman Life effects sample library, which comes with special sounds like Roman horses gallop sounds, or Roman horses "utter bulldroppings" sounds, among other unbelievable sonic experiencies. Available now!

Now seriously, re-peat, you say some important things here: "_All you can do is accept the artificiality of the premise, the inferiority of your tools, and try your best to make things sound as acceptable as you can_". It is VERY sensible to understand that there are huge limitations. If a performer or composer dreams the dream of "realistic samples", they don't understand that it is still not technically possible. When there's money available, everyone goes for the good old real thing. Samples (and variants) have wonderful uses...learning, teaching, games which need interactive music, recreational uses, music for lower budget projects, creative stuff, and so on. I want to believe that, in this forum, everybody is aware of the limitations of our MIDI tools. If somebody hasn't yet waken up, *re-peat* has written a valuable post.

************************************************************* 
*************************************************************


----------



## Hannes_F (Aug 24, 2010)

Jay and re-piet, I understand where you are coming from and this is why I kind of returned to live instrument recording after checking out what I could do with samples and what not.

However _if _we are using samples, even with all their restrictions, I don't see a reason why we should not be able to use micro-timing as an additional means of expression. Using 128 midi steps does not keep us from triggering a note a little earlier or later, right? We even can achieve this while mixing by moving, stretching or compressing notes in audio (and I have not problems at all if somebody does it all by mouse, greetings to Jay Bacal here!). For me it is more a question whether we really want to feed our musicality into the details or not.

BTW the situation in this thread feels a little paradox. I happened to have the big luck to personally learn two or three things from two of the players in the Alban Berg Quartet that you heard above (I wished I had learned more) and introduce some secrets here about "how it is done" on that level ... at least I have never read anything about that in an internet forum. But those of all that indeed would have the chops and musical insight to include it into their arsenal (if not to say the best of the best) fight it tooth and nail. Don't shoot the messenger (at least not until you at least grabbed the gifts, haha).

Be it as it is, I still feel I can express myself to a certain amount even with samples ... if I give everything the time it needs and room to breathe. It seems to boil down to a very simple conclusion: Whenever I managed to play in a way timing-wise that gave me the chills while recording, this will happen again when I listen to it later, even if I realize that it is limited in terms of sound. 

Here is one example I recorded years ago for a kid's show with only the simplest means in terms of samples and reverb. Be warned, I did not care too much about reality in sound in that time because I always regarded samples as a kind of super-expressive organ anyways and not a replacement for the real thing. Anyway I happen to think that concerning the micro-timing it has a quality and therefore I still like it:

http://www.frischat.com/compose/HannesFrischat_Mozart_Der_Vogelfaenger8_192.mp3 (http://www.frischat.com/compose/HannesF ... r8_192.mp3) 

A last remark for those that say nobody hears the difference anyways etc. ... I think there are a lot of unconcious processes going on while listening to music. People usually have no radar ears and can neither analyze nor describe what they hear, but the effect of different levels of musicality on mind and body can be extremely different imo.


----------



## Hannes_F (Aug 24, 2010)

Roque Fort @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> ####################################################
> But here we always seem to need a *starting point and a practical approach*:
> 
> :arrow: FOR *INTENSE* PASSAGES, *INCREASE* (A BIT, AND GRADUALLY) THE TEMPO.
> ...



There you have a key in your hands that is incredibly valuable. As you said it is more an orientation than a rule and there are important exceptions but if somebody listens to great interpretations with that key in mind it could open a new world, really.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 24, 2010)

Roque Fort @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> Hey forumites, you've been my source of inspiration. I was having trouble finding an interesting title to name my music and now you've given me lots of them! Have a look. And see if you find them useful too,... they are your own words. These titles are still a work in progress. And I still hope to collect some more.
> 
> ======================================================
> LIST OF POSSIBLE TITLES FOR MY RECENT MUSIC
> ...




Love it! And that's good enough for me to exit this thread.


----------



## Narval (Aug 24, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> I did not care too much about reality in sound in that time because I always regarded samples as a kind of super-expressive organ anyways and not a replacement for the real thing.


That's precisely what a sampler is: a special type of organ. Remember: one of the organ's primary functions was to replace the choir (or the accompanying instrumental ensemble). Pretty much like the sampler today. Does that make the organ inauthentic, fake, a fraud? Does that mean the organ is inherently flawed and anything coming out of it is doomed to falseness? And that, because the delusional organ player thinks he's playing the choir?

I am not very sure about sample players being delusional. I think everyone is aware of the differences between samples and physical instruments. The limitations are too obvious to ignore. But does that mean that "it doesn't matter" what you do with them? - just quantize, randomize, tweak a bit manually and forget about it, because it will never sound like the real thing anyways? Of course it won't, but is that a reason to abandon expression and phrasing in your music? I don't think so. I think it's worthy to try to overcome those limitations while trying to make your sample-based music sound meaningful, sounding like behind the playing was not a quantized/randomized robot but a sensible human being trying to express something meaningful. The rest of it is out of our hands and requires the listeners' suspension of disbelief. 

If, centuries ago, music lovers have learned to appreciate both the choir and the organ, maybe the music lovers today can learn to appreciate both the orchestra and the sampler. One thing they are not very likely to appreciate: that the musician abandons meaningful/expressive playing because quantizers and randomizers do _the same job,_ and because "it doesn't matter anyways."

Care.


----------



## Roque Fort (Aug 24, 2010)

****************************************
Hey Hannes_F, that really sounds nice! Bravo!


Obviously, the sounds, reverberation, and space field are extremely simple...but the result is LOVELY.


I could listen to it often, and I would enjoy it more each time. Although that may be due to my weakness for classical (western) music. (I love reading good old scores and playing incredibly old good music. I feel as if entering into a time tunnel).


You've made my day a better day.


I've noticed this FASCINATING PHENOMENON many times. OLD RECORDINGS IN WAX CILINDERS, OLD DISCS, CORRUPTED FILES, (LOW QUALITY) MP3 FILES, MONO RECORDINGS FULL OF NOISE AND CLIPPING, THE WORST RECORDING MEDIA YOU CAN IMAGINE...AND NONE OF THESE SOUND ENEMIES CAN EASILY DEFEAT EXPRESSIVE MUSIC.


If you want to know what I mean by expressive, enjoy this awesome performance, You'll notice that there is some clipping and that the quality of the sound is poor but what an expressive performance :o ! (Notice: the site is in Russian):

http://woj461.wrzuta.pl/film/0TQRqrk2Gvl
o=< This performer is a library of expression. o=<


******************************************


----------



## OlavB (Aug 27, 2010)

Narval @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> . One thing they are not very likely to appreciate: that the musician abandons meaningful/expressive playing because quantizers and randomizers do _the same job,_ and because "it doesn't matter anyways."
> 
> Care.




I wouldn't make assumptions like that in a world where 'they' are learning to appreciate 96kbps mp3's.


----------



## Ed (Aug 27, 2010)

My thoughts can be summed up as follows:

If it sounds good why does it matter? Randomise, quantise - whatever! If after doing it it sounds better, then I fail to see the problem.


----------



## Narval (Aug 27, 2010)

OlavB @ Fri Aug 27 said:


> Narval @ Tue Aug 24 said:
> 
> 
> > . One thing they are not very likely to appreciate: that the musician abandons meaningful/expressive playing because quantizers and randomizers do _the same job,_ and because "it doesn't matter anyways."
> ...


Alright, I'll rephrase.

Since 'they' appreciate that compressed 96kbps quality is a good replacement to CD quality, let's also replace expressive playing and meaningful editing with automatic quantizers/randomizers, cause 'they' can't tell the difference anyways.

Better now?


----------



## OlavB (Aug 28, 2010)

Well, you know... I wasn't trying to say that they can't tell the difference, I was more getting at the fact they don't give a damn. I sometimes ride the train and sit close to a kid with bad ipod headphones SO loud that I can actually hear the screeching and scratching in their bad mp3's. Different discussion I suppose.


----------

