# Have sample libraries, DAWs and Synths plateaued?



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

There is no doubt there have be good iterative improvements, but lots of libraries out there are often 10+ years old, but loads of people still use them. Have we in truth in reached a plateau where the costs of libraries are getting cheaper but there isn't much innovation going on?

I think this might be the same situation with, DAWs, midi controllers and synths. The only thing that seems to massively improve is the reduction in purchase price (maybe not MSRP, but more the regular sale price), which is probably in part explained but increasing number of users rather than just down to a reduction in costs.


----------



## TomislavEP (Mar 23, 2021)

I largely agree with this. Modern music technology has reached a certain "high standard", so to speak, that most of us are expecting. Of course, there will always be evolution, but I don't think that it's going to be as dramatic as going from Mellotron to the modern sampler, at least not in my book. The biggest revolution (IMO), as you say, is the lower and lower cost of cutting-edge technology or the possibility to get the quality for free when it comes to software.


----------



## Crowe (Mar 23, 2021)

Sure they have. Everything plateaus until a completely different way of doing things is found.

Which is why we now have the Infinite Series.

And Birth of the Trumpet.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Mar 23, 2021)

I don't know. According to the marketing teams, every new library is the second coming of Christ.


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

Hmm, I'm kind of half and half on this.

I think there are some libraries that are coming out that completely blow my mind and have completely changed how I write my music like the *infinite series, Sample Modeling *(Brass specifically, I can't get the strings to sound quite how I want) and *Adventure Brass. *These libraries have a great sound but more importantly they play so well. I love not being able to constantly change keyswitches for articulations and fudge around in the midi editor.

But then there's every other library that seems to come out where they sound great...when you push down a note or two. But then you try to record something really quickly and it feels like your fighting with it all the time. I need to change articulations, sometimes adjust the notes because the sample has some weird offset thing so it doesn't trigger exactly when the note is played.

The main library I own that I have a love hate relationship with is *Spitfire's BBC*. It sounds gorgeous but I hate trying to write anything with it. I can only imagine how much of an amazing library it would be if it was scripted like the infinite series but instead we got something incredibly sloppy and expensive.

So with that small rant out of the way, I think that what we really need is for companies to push for playability now, they already know how to record them to make them sound good. The performance is THE most important thing and that seems to be the hardest part of using libraries. I could go on about this topic all day but I'll just leave it here. Curious if anyone agrees with me.


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

Interesting views so far. I agree that infinite series, sample modeling and audio modeling are 3 companies that are doing something different and creating playable libraries. However none of the bigger companies seem to be exploring these options, plus most people on this forum keep to more traditional libraries. 

So I suppose the question is, is there enough incentive to innovate? For example Abbey Road foundations is very popular but doesn't even have legato, but what it does have is the Abbey Road sound. Are users looking for innovation or just timbrel improvements?


----------



## Pianolando (Mar 23, 2021)

In my opinion Sample libraries have definitely plateaued, and quite some time ago. Strings wise, it’s hard to argue that the new libraries are any better than Hollywood strings (2010 I believe) or Berlin Strings (2013). Some new libraries introduce new things, like for instance MSS with the ostinato engine or CSS with the super long legato transition that fits some kinds of music perfectly, other are essentially one trick ponies with a very specific sound or quality, but I don’t think the libraries today sound more like a real section than they did 10+ years ago. Sometimes, with a lot of work, they can sound like a real section, doing very specific things, written for that library. I wish it was otherwise but I haven’t seen any game changing inventions in the business for quite some years.


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 23, 2021)

Libraries can always be pushed more and more.
Personally, I don't think modeling has gone far enough and got close enough to sounding right. There is no modeled library on the market at the moment which sounds half as realistic as sampled libraries (for me). If they get there at one point that would be great for flexibility and less hard disc space, but it feels really far off at the moment.

The last library that really impressed me as for innovative realism and expression is Vista. Pity it is so limited.

As for effects plugins... wow we are there basically. Yes, most (or all) outboard gear still sounds better then its digital counterparts (I compared many times first hand). But the quality we got to is just mind blowing and will only get better and better until analog is 100% reached, and surpassed (give it 5 year tops).
There are no excuses now for not being able to make something sound awesome completely ITB.

I am waiting with confidence to have my mind blown by some new technology that will give us even more power in the near future.


Little side rant:
Honestly I am seeing too many developers having boners for AI stuff instead of creative things. Self making music, self chords, self melodies, I really don't like this trend. 
When they are going to be pushed aside by AI developers able to predict better what consumers want, it is going to be interesting.


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

Markrs said:


> Interesting views so far. I agree that infinite series, sample modeling and audio modeling are 3 companies that are doing something different and creating playable libraries. However none of the bigger companies seem to be exploring these options, plus most people on this forum keep to more traditional libraries.
> 
> So I suppose the question is, is there enough incentive to innovate? For example Abbey Road foundations is very popular but doesn't even have legato, but what it does have is the Abbey Road sound. Are users looking for innovation or just timbrel improvements?


I've heard an argument that because people aren't really getting mentors from composers and not working with a real players and are mainly working on sample libraries that a lot of the music that's coming out are writing to the limitations of the libraries (I'd rather saw off a limb than do that.)

Since libraries have been this way for quite a long time now I wouldn't be suprised if it really has effected how people write music so the libraries that are coming out are fine for what the vast majority of people use them for and so there's not as high of a demand for playability, they know people will just buy a new library because of it's sound alone (I used to be one of them, I've sworn I'll never do it again.) 

It's very easy to fall into this trap I guess. Everyone wants their music to sound better and a new library comes along with great sounding demos and you go "that's it, that's the one" but what you don't realise is how long someone spend painstakingly tweaking the midi editor to get the demo to sound good in the first place, and with deadlines getting shorter you can't spend that amount of time on every track you do. 

The amount of times I bought a new library only to find out that when it comes out of the box it sounds almost the same as the one I owned is staggering. There are of course a few exceptions like *Metropolis Ark 1 *Which has a very large sound to it and there have been a few ocassions where I knew that's what I needed to get the job done, but other than that they all start to blend in together.

I wonder if we were all writing pieces like John Williams, Alan Silvestri, James Horner etc then maybe there would be a higher demand for more playable instruments but I don't think that's happening any time soon.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Mar 23, 2021)

I think DAWs have a LONG way to go. Sound sources, be it libraries or synths, not so much. But the way how we record things and how we further process that data and make it into produced music is actually still painfully clumsy, counterintuitive and largely completely unmusical. Software in general, especially how we connect to it, is gonna change very much in the coming decades.


----------



## Gerbil (Mar 23, 2021)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I think DAWs have a LONG way to go. Sound sources, be it libraries or synths, not so much. But the way how we record things and how we further process that data and make it into produced music is actually still painfully clumsy, counterintuitive and largely completely unmusical. Software in general, especially how we connect to it, is gonna change very much in the coming decades.


I'm intruiged. I find using them pretty straightforward.


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

So the third question is: Is the lack of demand for innovation because we are all writing to the limitations of the sample libraries (I watched a video on the old sampling in Amiga and that is what users had to do then, which shaped the sound created)? 

This means that there is no real demand for other types of innovation beyond timbrel as what users want to create is limited to the current ability of sample libraries.


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

Markrs said:


> So the third question is: Is the lack of demand for innovation because we are all writing to the limitations of the sample libraries (I watched a video on the old sampling in Amiga and that is what users had to do then, which shaped the sound created)?
> 
> This means that there is no real demand for other types of innovation beyond timbrel as what users want to create is limited to the current ability of sample libraries.


To be honest yeah, I think that's the main issue. That and people keep falling for the gimmicks that are being advertised like they *Abbey Road* stuff. "Buy this and it will sound like you recorded in Abbey Road!" Except...no, not really because there's a lot more to it than just recording a section of the orchestra on their own in a room. But when an orchestra plays together the sounds interact with each other and all sort of physics stuff that's way over my head.

That and it's no use if you can't play the instrument well anyway. It honestly baffles me how something like that is a selling point. You can throw in the worst players on earth into Abbey Road it doesn't suddenly make them sound any better (Sorry, these things really bother the life out of me.)

But people still buy the libraries regardless so from a buissness standpoint I get it. Why should we bother putting the time and effort into creating something different when we can do the same thing we always do and still make money.

I think the only way for these companies to push themselves is if everyone decided to switch to more playable libraries like Infinite and stop buying the same stuff. The only way they'll push themselves is if they start losing money and I don't think that's happening any time soon unfortunately. But hey, I've been proven wrong before.


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> a lot of the music that's coming out are writing to the limitations of the libraries (I'd rather saw off a limb than do that.)


You make a lot of interesting points but unfortuntely most people, even at pretty high levels, are writing TO the sounds they have got because, 90% of projects will never ever have the budget for a full blown orchestra recorded in a proper studio.

On my side, I would rather saw off a limb  then write something absolutely unplayable by my sample libraries, and that will end up sounding un-realistic and therfore less convincing and "professional" as a finished product.
I know it is not ideal and not "pure", but unless I am certain my composition will be recorded by mostly real people at a later stage, I stick to writing what is going to sound good with the libraries I am using.

This process also permits me to, for example, add ONE harp note and ONE choir chord for an entire given composition if I feel it works, without worrying about the musicians having to get hired to play one single note. Or, if another voice in my string quartet composition sounds nice, it becomes an unrealistic "5 voice quartet" for a couple of passages....

Not saying it is the right thing to do, actually probably wrong for many, it is just how I personally see this....
The final product IS the composition at the end of the day, for most.


----------



## Gerbil (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> You can throw in the worst players on earth into Abbey Road it doesn't suddenly make them sound any better


I can confirm that Spitfire most certainly did not do that.


----------



## molemac (Mar 23, 2021)

How about STAFFPAD. That’s a game changer. Write a score in bed and hear it back nearly as good as(some cases better than) a daw with no need for speakers/keyboards/plugins etc.. It doesn’t sound like the real thing but it‘s a kind of magic.


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

molemac said:


> How about STAFFPAD. That’s a game changer. Write a score in bed and hear it back nearly as good as(some cases better than) a daw with no need for speakers/keyboards/plugins etc.. It doesn’t sound like the real thing but it‘s a kind of magic.


Is this still limited by the sample libraries that are used underneath?


----------



## molemac (Mar 23, 2021)

Markrs said:


> Is this still limited by the sample libraries that are used underneath?


Underneath ?


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

molemac said:


> Underneath ?


In the sense that Staffpad has to use sample libraries built into the system, but based on spitfire, etc to create the music. Those libraries has their weaknesses, that would still exist in staffpad


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> To be honest yeah, I think that's the main issue. That and people keep falling for the gimmicks that are being advertised like they *Abbey Road* stuff. "Buy this and it will sound like you recorded in Abbey Road!" Except...no, not really because there's a lot more to it than just recording a section of the orchestra on their own in a room. But when an orchestra plays together the sounds interact with each other and all sort of physics stuff that's way over my head.
> 
> That and it's no use if you can't play the instrument well anyway. It honestly baffles me how something like that is a selling point. You can throw in the worst players on earth into Abbey Road it doesn't suddenly make them sound any better (Sorry, these things really bother the life out of me.)
> 
> ...


The Abbey Road Foundation SOUND is to die for. No gimmicks at all. 
(the marketing is great too but the product sound is excellent).
The lack of legato has been discussed many times and I agree it is a limitation.

But exactly to the point, as an example, with that library in particular (Abbey Road ONE), I would stick to a mainly staccato piece thus using it's strengths to it's fullest, and maybe combining a great legato library such as Vista for example for certain passages. (put the right reverb to glue the two and good to go...)

The SOUND you get out of a library recorded in a space such as Abbey Road is infinitely worth it and, in my personal opinion, and as to my personal taste, infinitely superior to the SOUND of what you could obtain with the Infinite series. 

I am happily paying for the room sound, and the room sound I am getting indeed.


----------



## molemac (Mar 23, 2021)

Yes , the stock sounds are very good and the sample libraries are paid add ons. Berlin series, spitfire ,cinesamples etc In some cases the legato is better on the add ons than the daw version. I just use the stock +Berlin strings and buy others as and when ( like if you need an accordion for example) and I run it all through my Abbey rd impulse response 😂


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Mar 23, 2021)

Current sampling methods don't allow you to go too far. Physical modelling will be the next step forward, but I believe it needs a good decacde of development.


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

Gerbil said:


> I can confirm that Spitfire most certainly did not do that.



I'm not saying that spitfire recorded bad players for the library, my point was that performance matters more than the sound of a room.


----------



## tmhuud (Mar 23, 2021)

molemac said:


> Underneath ?



“Deep-Sampled”.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Mar 23, 2021)

Daws have many advancements to come.
As for sample libraries much of the limitations are due to the platforms. Kontakt is the bottleneck for a lot of this. The other part is companies not being able to adequately develop their own samplers, and continue to push them to the next level. It seems most 3rd party alternatives mostly end up limited to bug fixes rather than pushing their engines further.

I think we’d see more change if we had more options. A better split between kontakt, UVI falcon, and maybe even PLAY if they would let 3rd parties contribute to libraries for that engine.

the other issue is maybe we’re just not demanding more. We’re prone to demanding sufficient tools to satisfy the status quo. Perhaps we’d see something new and exciting if more of the industry demanded new and unique experimentation.


----------



## mallux (Mar 23, 2021)

Feels like one area still ripe for significant advances is (human) voice instruments... both in terms of playability and the final result... needs some breakthrough technology a la Amazon Alexa where you don’t really have to worry about programming bizarre wordbuilder phonetics... imagine being able to feed your DAW some lyrics and a tune, and have it reproduce a clear, nuanced solo vocal...


----------



## lux (Mar 23, 2021)

Speaking just orchestral samples I have the personal impression since years that many developers took a "size and huge scripting first" root. The ending result have often been huge libs with a certain ability to kill computers resources but, at the end, not such a great innovative potential sonic-wise. 

I'm kinda still missing enough mid-small sized libs with a lot of work spent on layers coherence and "masking" ideas, perhaps starting from limited sample pools, but played with love, smartly directed and engineered.

I personally think it's hard to find innovative solutions when you have hundreds thousands samples in a pool. Basically you end up spending all developing stage in editing audio samples, and if you suddenly have a little "weird but cool" idea you probably just give up as it would be nearly impossible to revise the work again.

With huge sizes probably you are forced to choose what would work "on paper" and afford on technical analysis and scripting. I'm definitely an old fart on this matter and still put ears on the top of my "afford list"


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

Another question is are sample libraries holding the type of music we create back or is the type of music we want to create holding development in sample libraries back.

I don't mean to be able to recreate Mozart, Haydn, or Debussy but to have the flexibility to use instrumentation they way them could but with our to add production techniques, like adding FX or modulating the sound. You feel hybrid is an attempt at this, but it lacks finese. Hopefully if you fat forward 5-10 years the music would sound quite different because the tools and the possibilities with it had changed. Or we could all still be listening to Hybrid Epic or Sound design (nothing wrong with either by the way), using 20 year old EWHO maybe with the Opus facelift or Berlin Strings using SINE with the same vintage or power synths, but with nothing much changing.


----------



## MarcusD (Mar 23, 2021)

Physical modelling will always be the future of VIs along with physical modelling of rooms and environments. All we're waiting for is technology to take a couple more leaps forward.


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

Along with improvements in physical modeling, I think we are also waiting on a radical shift in samplers, something that opens up new possibilities. At the moment most improvements in kontakt seem to come from the KSP scripts created rather than Kontakt unlocking potential. I think we need a sampler that does unlock what you can do with samples, that also doesn't require 128GB of RAM for it to run properly.


----------



## SlHarder (Mar 23, 2021)

mallux said:


> imagine being able to feed your DAW some lyrics and a tune, and have it reproduce a clear, nuanced solo vocal.


That quote would get quite a heated thread started on a vocal centric forum somewhere. 

Professionals in all fields have to constantly peer into the future and ponder how AI may affect their work going forward.


----------



## GNP (Mar 23, 2021)

Sample libraries often follow the innovations of composers out there, so I don't think it's the other way around, whereby the average composer expects a "groundbreaking" library. Incentives to make libraries are also done with financial incentives, so don't expect many manufacturers to create a language that hasn't been invented, tested and well known.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt (Mar 23, 2021)

In terms of orchestral ensembles, we have come quite a ways from the days of Miroslav. I think ensemble libraries will continue to improve incrementally, but I don't think we will see that kind of tectonic shift ten years from now.

With solo instruments we are pretty good with sounds that have a simple ADSR like drums, guitars, pianos, ie plucked, hammered, hit. With the human voice, in my opinion, we have only scratched the surface. As with everything, choirs are a lot better than the solo libraries for solo voice. With anything that sings and cries and shouts like the human voice, we have a long ways to go, like the saxophone. While a lot of people have worked really hard on the violin and taken it a long, long way, I do not think there has been a satisfactory Erhu yet. There is a lot of open space for improvement with solo world instruments. All you have to do is compare most of the stuff that comes out in the west from what is made in the native countries (like Three-Body Technology and Premiere), but in general, what is released here are relatively easy-to-sample solo instruments that closely parallel the sound of western ones like drums or harp or guitar (like we need more Guzhengs!), rather than something like the Erhu, where the challenge is enormous, and the user base of people who know the difference is smaller than it is with the violin.

The other area that has yet to be fully explored is plonkability. Anything involving key switches is not intuitive, for me anyway. It has nothing to do with the experience I have when I actually play an instrument. When I want to make an articulation, I do it because I feel it in the moment. It's a part of my body in a way that reaching for F#0 or a slider will never be. So I applaud the work of Virharmonic in this regard. They have set an example I hope others will follow in different ways.

When I get a new Ben Osterhouse library, I don't think "oh another one of_ those_." I didn't think that when I got Sunset Strings or Viola Untamed. There will always be fresh and unexpected ideas for sample libraries because there will always be creative people who follow their own path. Don't forget that a lot of what is commonly referred to as synths--like all the Output engines--begin with samples. A lot of the products that are released nowadays are engines based on samples, often using tech like granular to make it hard to even recognize that the sounds began as samples.

I also think there is lots of room for experimentation with controllers. We're far from done there. MPE is a great start. I have no idea what people will be using ten years from now. Things as simple as the StreamDeck and the ShuttlePRO have really changed my workflow tremendously. I use them all the time while I use my ROLI devices infrequently.

My starting with Sequencer Plus and going to the Cubase of today has been quite a road. Going from Logic and Sonar Platinum to Cubase was difficult, but not as radical an advance. It's my favorite DAW of the dozen or so I've used, but it wasn't that huge a leap. I don't think the DAW has fully plateaued, but I think it will probably be baby steps from now on.


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> On my side, I would rather saw off a limb  then write something absolutely unplayable by my sample libraries, and that will end up sounding un-realistic and therfore less convincing and "professional" as a finished product.





AudioLoco said:


> The SOUND you get out of a library recorded in a space such as Abbey Road is infinitely worth it and, in my personal opinion, and as to my personal taste, infinitely superior to the SOUND of what you could obtain with the Infinite series.



I understand these points but just imagine the possibilities if we could get these great sounding sample libraries to play as well as they sound! Being able to make these kind of libraries play well enough that I don't have to write to the limitations of the library is a dream for me and I'm sure they have the resources to try and pull something like that off, but I don't believe they will put that effort in.

As a personal preference this is why I take infinite almost every single time because when I'm performing then I can feel the emotion in the music as I'm playing. With other libraries I can't get into that zone.


----------



## kitekrazy (Mar 23, 2021)

Sometimes I tend to look at is as buying fishing lures. They are designed to catch anglers first, fish second. It's the same with pet toys.


----------



## Gerbil (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> I'm not saying that spitfire recorded bad players for the library, my point was that performance matters more than the sound of a room.


Apologies, it was a dry joke (they never work on the internet!)

I'm rather like yourself in that performance is the most important element to me as a musician - I hate dragging midi data around - but for clients the sound is a very big thing and I need to pay the bills. Fact is that Abbey Road One Foundation sounds incredible. I almost broke my jaw when I started using it.

I wish Spitfire were more ambitious in pushing the performance side of things, but they are what they are and I'm enough of a fan to keep using and buying their libraries.


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> I understand these points but just imagine the possibilities if we could get these great sounding sample libraries to play as well as they sound! Being able to make these kind of libraries play well enough that I don't have to write to the limitations of the library is a dream for me and I'm sure they have the resources to try and pull something like that off, but I don't believe they will put that effort in.
> 
> As a personal preference this is why I take infinite almost every single time because when I'm performing then I can feel the emotion in the music as I'm playing. With other libraries I can't get into that zone.


That is the dream from the beginning of times... from the Mellotron to the Synclavier to Akai900 to GigaSampler to Kontakt stuff....

I totally share your dream 

Although until it is still a dream, I personally prefer to write to the samples, in order to obtain a final product that sounds as convincing as I could get it to...
It is a compromise of some sort, but as it is I am happy enough with it for the time being....


----------



## twincities (Mar 23, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> As for effects plugins... wow we are there basically. Yes, most (or all) outboard gear still sounds better then its digital counterparts (I compared many times first hand). But the quality we got to is just mind blowing and will only get better and better until analog is 100% reached, and surpassed (give it 5 year tops).
> There are no excuses now for not being able to make something sound awesome completely ITB.


cloning 1176's and pultec's is a pretty low bar. and you're right, we're 99% of the way there. but for the same reason i think daw's still have a long road ahead of them involving breaking out of just being digital tape machines, plugins have a lot of things to explore that hardware can't do. 

soothe, auto tune, multiband everything, lookahead, granular clouds at the push of a button, etc. the real innovation isn't in the digital versions of the same tools that were being using on records in the 70/80's, it's in the creation of plugins doing things they couldn't achieve with the analog hardware that existed then.


----------



## MauroPantin (Mar 23, 2021)

I'm just waiting on modelling to get there. There are already great instruments with this technology out there, they're just a bit more difficult to manage and resource intensive. I think that will be the way to go in the not-so-distant future as far as realism goes, they just need to sort those things out.


----------



## jamessy (Mar 23, 2021)

After reading through this thread and looking up the infinite series, how are these patches so small?? And they seem super playable


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

jamessy said:


> After reading through this thread and looking up the infinite series, how are these patches so small?? And they seem super playable


I don't own them, but there is a very large thread about them:





__





Infinite Series (Aaron Venture) thread


Hello, I own Infinite Woodwinds, it's really great, but I can't manage to do glissandi on Clarinets. I read the manual, and tried low velocities, but I always have attacks on each note, not at all glissando effect. I tried different velocities and CC1 combination, no success. What am I missing...




vi-control.net





Jack McKenzie has also done a review of the Brass which is worth watching:





__





Infinite Brass: Aaron Venture - WALKTHROUGH


I finally managed to make some time to review and walkthrough this amazing library! Infinite Brass by Aaron Venture:




vi-control.net


----------



## NoamL (Mar 23, 2021)

if you all are sick of Spitfire Audio fan shills, now would be an excellent time to leave the forum for two years! 

Spitfire are going to blow this thing wide open. You and I are judging them on their products from a decade ago. They have since hired twenty times as many people as worked on BML. They experimented with sampling & programming in all kinds of setups. They built their own sample player which builds on their advantage with Sandbox & Kickstart in Kontakt. Finally they managed to snag recording rights in ABBEY. ROAD. They announced that they're developing a deep-sampled full orchestral lineup, and released some ensemble recordings that sound fantastic. All of this is not just building up to a "parallel"/"redo" product of the 2010s era orchestral libraries like HWS, CineSamples, and SSO itself. ARO won't be the killer orchestra for everyone - not everyone is aiming for the Big Orchestra Big Room sound. But as I am, ARO is really exciting.

The more realistic samples become, the more people realize the competitive advantage from recording samples _on_ the actual recording stages you would use, _with_ the players you would use, _through_ the recording setup your engineer would use. The name "Abbey Road" doesn't just stand for a large wooden box, it stands for some priceless mics and recording gear, and the personnel who bring all the space-specific knowledge from playing and recording this venue for years.

Spitfire has/had much to learn from the indie devs who flourished between 2012-2019 but I see their age drawing to a close. Those indie devs had a lot of neat ideas for pushing samples forward technologically. They were able to compete with the supposed "incumbents" of the sample world like Spitfire and CineSamples because SF and CS were themselves the homebrewed-garage-PC equivalent of sampling apps. Either CS or another company (OT?), I forget, had to borrow personnel from Remote in order to get the job done on their first product, because HZ was so far ahead of the field privately. Paul and Christian never set out to make SF a large company; BML was practically a hobbyist endeavor. So between 2012-2019 plenty of new developers could do as well as these almost-homebrewed products, and they could benefit from the market data gathered by the incumbent companies. What people liked/disliked about current products and what they wanted to see in the next one. But the problem with the indie developers is they didn't have access to world-class or even A-List spaces. Their libraries won't be totally obsoleted by ARO, but I think people will get pickier about what they use from the indie developers.

What is starting now is the era of "battleship" sample libraries. It's gonna be dreadnought vs dreadnought and the only real competitors to Spitfire right now are: CineSamples assuming they continue to have rights to SONY/MGM, and perhaps VSL if Synchron gets _a lot a lot_ more adoption as an A list scoring space. Right now Spitfire commands the heights with exclusivity in the two most in-demand scoring stages in Europe and, arguably for the Big Symphony Orchestra sound, the world. So again, if you all are sick of Spitfire being the incumbent power of the sample orchestra space... buckle up for the next 2 years....


----------



## chillbot (Mar 23, 2021)

NoamL said:


> if you all are sick of Spitfire Audio fan shills, now would be an excellent time to leave the forum for two years!


I think that is an excellent idea gnoomer! Let's get all the spitfire shills to leave the forum for two years!!


----------



## bozmillar (Mar 23, 2021)

I think that fact that we are talking about 10 years as being super old suggests that things have not plateaued, but our definition of old is becoming shorter and shorter. I think that means that things are improving so fast that our only way to cope with it is to just raise our expectations on how fast change should be.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 23, 2021)

chillbot said:


> I think that is an excellent idea gnoomer! Let's get all the spitfire shills to leave the forum for two years!!


We are HERE to STAY @chillbot ! How else would I pay my rent!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 23, 2021)

If you think synths have plateaued, just visit the Reaktor Users’ Library.


----------



## muk (Mar 23, 2021)

In my opinion you vastly overestimate the influence of the recording venue Noam. The recording engineer has at least as much influence over the outcome than the room being used, if not more. Case in point being these two examples:

(Troels Folman 'Short Notes', demo for 8dio Century Strings)


https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/troels-folman-short-notes-mp3.45847/



(Sascha Knorr, 'The Rhythm in Time', demo for Sonokinetic Ostinato Strings)


https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/sascha-knorr-rhythm-in-time-mp3.45848/



The first one sounds flat and very bright. It's a hyped sound. The second example sounds very balanced and open, with a beautiful natural space. Both have been recorded at the exact same location. And they sound nothing alike.

Another example. I think we all agree that Watford Town Hall, Wellington Twon Hall, Montreal Symphony House, and Henry Wood Studio are definitely not among the well-known and widely used venues for recordings of film music. And yet, parts of the Lord of the Rings soundtrack have been recorded there. In addition to Abbey Roads. Now, can anybody, simply by listening, tell which parts have been recorded where? I highly doubt it. The soundtrack has been recorded at very different venues. Yet nobody notices. It sounds coherent because they took care to use the same recording techniques and engineering.

So I really don't think that recording at Abbey Roads will have a huge impact per se. Air Lyndhurst isn't a slouch either when it comes to movies that have been recorded there. The Dark Knight trilogy, Iron Man, Band of Brothers, parts of Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, Dunkirk, parts of Harry Potter etc etc. Why would recording at Abbey Roads now be such a huge step for Spitfire, if they recorded at a fantastic venue already? Simply because in 2019, a few more blockbuster movies have been recorded there?

I really don't follow that logic. In fact, that Spitfire records at Abbey Roads now could just as well be seen as stagnation of sample libary production. They start doing the same thing, just at a new location. Which of the two opinions will be closer to the truth remains to be seen. In any case, if the new Spitfire Orchestral line is to be the be all end all orchestral library that you think it will, it'll have to offer much much more than just a prominent recording venue.


----------



## youngpokie (Mar 23, 2021)

NoamL said:


> But the problem with the indie developers is they didn't have access to world-class or even A-List spaces. Their libraries won't be totally obsoleted by ARO, but I think people will get pickier about what they use from the indie developers.


For sure the hype around these venues is going to be intense but I'm not convinced this marketing has enough legs to last another decade. 

First, it's not going to be easy for an average user to really tell the difference between all these stages. I guess the developer can always put together a "Simon Rhodes mix" to make it appear a bit more valuable. 

Second, Emberone's Joshua Bell appears to be more popular than most solo violins recorded in these precious spaces. 

My bold prediction is that the holy grail will be world-class A-list orchestras sampled: Berlin Philharmonic level (sorry, BBC). With a world-famous conductor, and with the modular approach similar to Dimension Strings. It will be all about performance, performance, performance...


----------



## CT (Mar 23, 2021)

muk said:


> Now, can anybody, simply by listening, tell which parts have been recorded where?


Hello!

Anyway I do have to agree with Noam. The point isn't that AR is a step above AIR, it's that the next era of Spitfire, a company that's already played such a role in defining this stuff, with all of its accumulated wisdom since the BML days, is taking place in an equally if not slightly more storied location with all the expertise of its personnel, including recording engineer, as you mentioned muk.

It seems sensible to me see this as cause for optimism, more than anything being done by developers with less resources and experience at least. Not to say there will or should be a monopoly, nor that other stuff will be irrelevant or useless. But again like Noam said, for the classic symphonic thing, the standard is probably going to rise, significantly.


----------



## thesteelydane (Mar 23, 2021)

NoamL said:


> Spitfire has/had much to learn from the indie devs who flourished between 2012-2019 but I see their age drawing to a close. Those indie devs had a lot of neat ideas for pushing samples forward technologically. They were able to compete with the supposed "incumbents" of the sample world like Spitfire and CineSamples because SF and CS were themselves the homebrewed-garage-PC equivalent of sampling apps. Either CS or another company (OT?), I forget, had to borrow personnel from Remote in order to get the job done on their first product, because HZ was so far ahead of the field privately. Paul and Christian never set out to make SF a large company; BML was practically a hobbyist endeavor. So between 2012-2019 plenty of new developers could do as well as these almost-homebrewed products, and they could benefit from the market data gathered by the incumbent companies. What people liked/disliked about current products and what they wanted to see in the next one. But the problem with the indie developers is they didn't have access to world-class or even A-List spaces. Their libraries won't be totally obsoleted by ARO, but I think people will get pickier about what they use from the indie developers.


Well, I ain't going down without a fight!


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

Mike T said:


> Hello!
> 
> Anyway I do have to agree with Noam. The point isn't that AR is a step above AIR, it's that the next era of Spitfire, a company that's already played such a role in defining this stuff, with all of its accumulated wisdom since the BML days is taking place in an equally if not slightly more storied location with all the expertise of its personnel, including recording engineer, as you mentioned muk.


But is that not still just timbrel changes or at best small incremental improvements over what has already been done?


----------



## CT (Mar 23, 2021)

Markrs said:


> But is that not still just timbrel changes or at best small incremental improvements over what has already been done?


What's wrong with small incremental improvements? Gone are the days when someone can spring "true legato" on us and cause a revolution. The groundwork has been firmly laid for years now. I don't expect improvements to be nearly so dramatic anymore. It'll be about who can take the best, filter out the worst, and wrap it up into the nicest package. My money's on Spitfire.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 23, 2021)

For sample libraries, technically, the innovation lies in modeling (see Infinite series) and to a lesser extent scripting (see Symphonic Motions or MSS). Tonally, the "innovation" lives in the venue and recording philosophy (see AROOF or the articulation abundance of VSL).

For DAWs, the innovation lies where it always has - workflow (see Staffpad, see Dorico, see Studio One).

To say things have plateaued is a myopic view and not particularly inspired.


----------



## LynxUK (Mar 23, 2021)

DAWs, havent plateaued yet. I do think you will see more innovation fromStudio One, than you will from something like Cubase though. Actually I think Steinberg are probably coming to crossroads with Cubase, just in that old legacy code is probably keeping them from being too adventurous.

Acoustic modelling is probably the future and has a fair way to go IMO. It has many benefits and great potential. Imagine being able to dial in the tone for any violin by specific make and year of manufacturer, at a specific venue. Complete flexibility, not taking up TB's of drive space. 
The benefits could be far reaching. Besides, managing TB's of data is a pain for any customer. If its not the financial outlay of creating the space to put it, its the financial outlay of backing it up effectively. For the developer the cost of hosting those files...I'm sure AWS isnt cheap for example.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 23, 2021)

muk said:


> (Troels Folman 'Short Notes', demo for 8dio Century Strings)
> https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/troels-folman-short-notes-mp3.45847/
> (Sascha Knorr, 'The Rhythm in Time', demo for Sonokinetic Ostinato Strings)
> https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/sascha-knorr-rhythm-in-time-mp3.45848/


Not to be too nit picky but.... EQ? Other than that, the space totally sounds similar. Obviously mic configurations and placement of players has some big effects on things, and I imagine there may be other processing like reverbs on both of those, but the main difference I hear between those examples is tonal, EQ. Also, Ostinato Strings time stretches its samples to map to tempo, and that time stretching is going to expand or compress the space in dramatic ways, but still.



muk said:


> So I really don't think that recording at Abbey Roads will have a huge impact per se. Air Lyndhurst isn't a slouch either when it comes to movies that have been recorded there.


I'm continually surprised these past few months how little I ever if ever have to tweak the sound of Abbey Road One in projects that suit that filmic sound (and even ones that don't!). Abbey Road Studio One just works in a way that few other stages do.

Teldex (OT)? A swimmy verby pain in the ass. Trackdown Studios (CS Series)? A muddy boxy pain in the ass. AIR? Not a slouch like you say, but its tail can be a little unruly, it can have a sort of "tunneling" effect on the tail, and there are some build-ups in the low mids that can cause issues, but yes, not bad at all.

There are so many other libraries that require so much mix management to get 80-90% there, but ARO gives me 80-90% straight out of the box, so other than some slight tone shaping and additional hall reverb depending on the context of the project, it's been a breeze. The room doesn't get that whoomy build up a lot of others do, the tail isn't bright and outrageous, they've engineered the session in a way where all the imaging just works, right there, I dunno man. Abbey Road Studio One is some sort of freak accident of engineering being able to sound as good as it does when you put on orchestra in it and set up the mics right.



muk said:


> The recording engineer has at least as much influence over the outcome than the room being used, if not more.


Well, they've also got Simon Rhodes engineering so...


----------



## CT (Mar 23, 2021)

As for the broader question of the thread, things may plateau occasionally but I don't think it means there's nowhere to go. Nothing is ever going to be flawless, so there's always room for more. The Abbey Road stuff of course will have shortcomings of one sort or another that people can gripe about and another tool can rectify, though it'll have its own weaknesses. And so on....

Similar to what Paul said, a big thing that excites me about AROOF etc. is how consistently great pretty much everything people are putting out there sounds. Same thing happened with many BBCSO demos. Frankly that's just not something you hear every day and it excites me! I've found myself air conducting along with Paul T's demo, that legato-less, ensemble patch demo, and forgetting that it's samples. I think that's wild.


----------



## Larbguy (Mar 23, 2021)

maybe romplers have plateaued for the most part (tho i think there's always new ways to innovate, like sine's mic merging, etc) but i think things like the infinite series and sample modeling show there is a lot of potential for technological advancement towards improving user experience and playability. i don't even necessarily mind a lot of the 'smart' apps like scaler, but i think this isn't a pigeonhole for ai. you have things like gulfoss and other mixing apps that i gladly welcome getting better and better, so i can focus on just writing stuff and having a passable mix, and i personally don't mind generative audio and fake legato transitions if they sound real, like the ones in the infinite series. i guess i think there's still a high ceiling for advancement of sample library tech as a whole in terms of innovation and stuff, but not necessarily in a way the completely pushes older products into obsolescence, which is perfect honestly, cuz i still want to use my old tech with new stuff, so long as they sonically work well enough together


----------



## CT (Mar 23, 2021)

I wish I were more enthusiastic about the future of modeling and semi-modeling. Occasionally I hear something promising, but where things are now compared to where they were ten years ago makes me a tad skeptical....

I think clever scripting/programming of very detailed sampling, as we'll see in Abbey Road, Voyage, etc., is the real way forward, the new standard.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 23, 2021)

Modeling and AI technology are interesting to me because I feel like when they try to produce things that trick humans into believing their real without tons of human intervention and cherry-picking, you run into two issues: outputs that are perceptually artificial and fake or outputs that are perceptually... "blurry" and "off". Not just imagery, but sound, language, etc. A lack of life and nuance lost.

There have been so many incredibly cool research tools that recreate the sound of instruments but in roundabout ways, repurposing real-life characteristics onto other things to imbue them with life, like that tool that let you sing to it and it would turn your singing into other instruments, but there's always a sort of "blurriness" to it. Something that's just a bit unnatural. Maybe you could use the output, dump it into a mix and get away with it, but upfront in your face, the results are strange. Maybe totally usable! But strange. "Blurry." Same with image upscaling algorithms are face-generating algorithms. Sometimes they get lucky and get real close, but you also don't realize that more often than not, 95% of the outputs are thrown out and cherry-picked by the developers for their papers and press packets.

Sample modeling is cool, but there's also a reason why most of the best results are crafted with either INTENSE hand-holding care, buckets of hand-crafted automation, or the input of a life-giving control like breath controllers. Modeling by its very nature will always struggle to feel alive without humans putting life into them, and that's a lot to ask for working media composers. For hobbyists that want to sit around and spend weeks making the perfect recreation of some classical piece (that still ends up sounding just a little bit wonky), or someone intentionally striving to use cutting-edge tools with allowances for the weirdness at their core, then sure, whatever.


----------



## CT (Mar 23, 2021)

More than that, even if modeling got to a point that I thought sounded great with a reasonable amount of effort, I think I'd feel uneasy about totally excising the human element from my fake musical performances. Maybe that's dumbly romantic or old fashioned of me, but I really think I'd rather hear something a little sloppy that a real person played than something needle-precise with no real life.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 23, 2021)

muk said:


> Why would recording at Abbey Roads now be such a huge step for Spitfire, if they recorded at a fantastic venue already? Simply because in 2019, a few more blockbuster movies have been recorded there?


I would be as excited if they went back to AIR - the main thing is that they're taking a 2nd swing at doing a full deep sampled orchestra.

There is this repeated meme of "they're doing Just Another Orchestra At A New Location" which I can't understand for 2 reasons. First, what else do people expect them to record? Do people expect them to invent new instruments? I don't understand the "just another" in JAO. The orchestra is the mainstay of people who ... write orchestra music.  And secondly, I agree that their marketing is out of control, but to anyone who paid attention to the detailed specs, neither Spitfire Studio Orchestra nor BBCSO were deep sampled enough to be considered a true successor to the 2010 era deep sampled orchestra products (of which SSO was Spitfire's entrant). SSTO didn't have legatos and BBCSO seems to me like an educational product with an upgrade path, a sort of modern EWQLSO. This ARO thing is different.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Mar 23, 2021)

I agree with what's been said regarding how the libraries are only half of the issue, if that. The real innovation first needs to happen in the sample players. Based on what's on the market, Kontakt is a dinosaur, and the alternatives are only iterations of it (again, from what we've seen). Libraries that then take advantage of the tools are the next thing - this is why Spitfire and others are wanting to own as much of the experience as possible (plus $$), so they can make their libraries work how they want, with their vision on how you interact.

Input methods have a huge way to go. I have a hard time thinking that a keyboard developed for a piano is the best way. But, then, I'm still using a mouse, as well. At least there's some early exploration happening... or a new round of it. DAW innovation I think is somewhat tied to this.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 23, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Modeling and AI technology are interesting to me because I feel like when they try to produce things that trick humans into believing their real without tons of human intervention and cherry-picking, you run into two issues: outputs that are perceptually artificial and fake or outputs that are perceptually... "blurry" and "off". Not just imagery, but sound, language, etc. A lack of life and nuance lost.
> 
> There have been so many incredibly cool research tools that recreate the sound of instruments but in roundabout ways, repurposing real-life characteristics onto other things to imbue them with life, like that tool that let you sing to it and it would turn your singing into other instruments, but there's always a sort of "blurriness" to it. Something that's just a bit unnatural. Maybe you could use the output, dump it into a mix and get away with it, but upfront in your face, the results are strange. Maybe totally usable! But strange. "Blurry." Same with image upscaling algorithms are face-generating algorithms. Sometimes they get lucky and get real close, but you also don't realize that more often than not, 95% of the outputs are thrown out and cherry-picked by the developers for their papers and press packets.
> 
> Sample modeling is cool, but there's also a reason why most of the best results are crafted with either INTENSE hand-holding care, buckets of hand-crafted automation, or the input of a life-giving control like breath controllers. Modeling by its very nature will always struggle to feel alive without humans putting life into them, and that's a lot to ask for working media composers. For hobbyists that want to sit around and spend weeks making the perfect recreation of some classical piece (that still ends up sounding just a little bit wonky), or someone intentionally striving to use cutting-edge tools with allowances for the weirdness at their core, then sure, whatever.


Spatialization is the big problem. Altiverb is 2002 technology, and what has _really_ advanced since then? The dry side of physically modeled samples is pretty close to convincing at this point, but it's all for naught if they can't be spatialized convincingly.

The cinematic sound is multidimensional. For strings, let's say, it is the tree sound plus the close & height mics picking up certain players out of the section... plus the outriggers picking up the flank players but at a distance... it's a sort of cubist collage. To replicate that with physical modeling you would need to model how the players are seated, _and_ how each individual instrument projects_, and_ how the sum of the sound bounces around the room _and_ how that is intercepted by the different mics _and_ the way different mics pick up sound differently. A big ask. It is not enough to just put the dry sample into an IR. I don't think those "position your instrument!!" products sound anything like a suite of mics actually placed in a world class scoring stage. There are some demos in the member's compositions forum where people tried to set up 15 individually programmed (!!!) modeled violins. Apart from the fact that's impossible for productivity reasons, it still doesn't hold up to something like Spitfire Symphonic Strings or CineStrings...


----------



## biomuse (Mar 23, 2021)

The answer is:
Computer music tech has not plateaued. Not even close:









Tone Transfer — Magenta DDSP


Play around with different inputs and outputs to see how machine learning transforms sounds.




sites.research.google






Keep in mind that this is a technology in its literal infancy, currently deployable from the cloud only, currently monophonic only, and that that will at some point change. Sure as the sun rises and sets. We're nowhere even approaching the endgame.

The source materials here are not recordings in Air Lyndhurst, nor in Abbey Road. It will be all recordings, anywhere.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 23, 2021)

@NoamL is spot on. To quote myself from the AROOF thread from 6 months ago:



ALittleNightMusic said:


> There's an interesting aspect of this from Spitfire's business strategy standpoint as well. A lot of people are talking about sampling techniques and asking why does the room matter. The thing is sampling techniques continue to evolve. Compare libraries from 10-15 years ago to ones today. Now fast forward 10 years and we should expect the same leaps in the technology. Sampling techniques and technology are not a moat or a competitive advantage or even what sells libraries. Yes, you will have certain improvements from certain developers but eventually everybody catches up (or at least, it is feasible for others to replicate if desired).
> 
> What hasn't changed over that same time though? The rooms that are most coveted for recording. Abbey Road, AIR, Sony, Fox, Eastwood.
> 
> And now, Spitfire essentially has exclusivity over two of those - AIR and Abbey Road. Look at AIR where Spitfire has been recording for over a decade now. How many other libraries have been recorded there and of those, how many can even state "AIR" in the product description (I believe the answer is none)? Spitfire will and should continue to improve and evolve their sampling technique, but 10 years from now, "Recorded at Abbey Road" will still carry a massive appeal - and that will allow Spitfire to continue to release updates and new products well into the future. They've ensured the survival of their company into the next decade.


Perhaps we are also asking the wrong question. Have sample libraries plateaued? Depends on how you look at it. Does that matter? Not sure. If anything, the overwhelming majority of customers have not maximized the potential of the current batch of libraries. If we had, all our mock ups would be as good as Andy Blaney's or Thomas Bergersen's. Perhaps what's really plateaued is our abilities. But then again this forum seems to be mostly compromised of sample library collectors and critics rather than musicians making music


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 23, 2021)

There's two things I want to comment on:

a) Yes, the room/location/mics/engineer make a difference large enough to do something again although it doesn't bring new raw features to the table. I have the luxury of having worked with one or the other library and I'm still surprised how much just the recoding can make or break an idea in context. And mics. Those grow on me. It's so good to see more mics,, especially from OT and SF in their recent releases. Really guys, it's not all RR and velocity layers.

b) this market is not only moving forward but sideways a lot. Sideways in the sense of horizontal. There is a lot more people interested in that type of sound in comparison to what we had 5 years ago. Orchestra is a part of what commercial music producers want.

So as for plateaued, I don't think so. Not from a commercial or innovative point of view.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Mar 23, 2021)

I don't think Logic Pro has plateaued, because it still has not incorporated Spotlight for searching in the DAW. I am utterly flabbergasted that Apple did not do this on almost Day 1... 
Still, something to look forward to

Also the MIDI Sends like the way that Cubase works, so we can use Remote Controls to change Artiulcations etc.

I currently have the option of using OSCulator, which is great, but would prefer to have a native solution

Maybe when Montreal Music Labs come out with Articulate I can use it with VM1 v2 Desktop on macOS

Until then....


----------



## youngpokie (Mar 23, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> If anything, the overwhelming majority of customers have not maximized the potential of the current batch of libraries. If we had, all our mock ups would be as good as Andy Blaney's or Thomas Bergersen's. Perhaps what's really plateaued is our abilities.


But doesn't the very point you make underscore the OP's question?

I don't think anybody minds putting in the work, but if it takes an Andy Blaney to make a good mock up it's a huge huge problem...

The invention of "true legato" was a big step forward because it made the work easier, not because it sounded like Abbey Rhodes. But these days developers have set up their conveyor belts and churn out sound colors on top of the same "chassis" as it were, rather than pursuing technological innovation.

If you are a composer who is not computer savvy, you're basically f*^&$ed because it is too complex, demanding and time consuming.


----------



## Sarah Mancuso (Mar 23, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> But doesn't the very point you make underscore the OP's question?
> 
> I don't think anybody minds putting in the work, but if it takes an Andy Blaney to make a good mock up it's a huge huge problem...
> 
> ...


Doing _anything_ well requires skill and dedication. Yes, there are still ways to make the process more painless, but you still have to learn what you're doing to get great results.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 23, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> But doesn't the very point you make underscore the OP's question?
> 
> I don't think anybody minds putting in the work, but if it takes an Andy Blaney to make a good mock up it's a huge huge problem...
> 
> ...


Most of the strides I've personally made in my mockup skills have come from learning how to use my tools smartly and efficiently, knowing the basic tasks I can commit to if I want to juice up the quality of a mockup, and getting comfortable enough with them that I can do all of them quickly whenever they're needed on a case by case basis. This is just a natural outcome of developing your skills and I'll admit I've still got a ways to go.

The pros aren't making good mockups because they invest more time and energy in every single thing they create, rather they've got good ears and know how to be smart and creative and flexible with their tools.

A lot of noobs bang their heads against the wall investing lots of time and energy trying to get sounds out of libraries because they don't yet know what it takes or aren't willing to put in the effort to learn how to use them well, like thinking you can just load up every instrument, set everything to unity gain, and make a killer mockup with simple note data and simple CC automation data, either hand-played or imported from notation software, limiting yourself to narrow views of what you should have to do to make something work or other variations of tunnel visioning on the wrong problems and the wrong solutions.

In reality, we should learn a bit about EVERY tool and technique at our disposal and be willing to execute on them every step of the way. This doesn't mean that every single piece of music and every single instrument requires using every tool and technique available, but often the great results come from being fluid, being willing to try that other way or layer this thing or EQ that way or get smart about reverb or work your CCs in a different way, and all of that can be done really quickly and really efficiently but you have to have the inertia and the experience to do it.

Sure libraries that spit out great results on a note press and a mod wheel are awesome, but all of them are compromised to deliver that specific sound and that specific response. Performance Samples makes super killer stuff but almost every product is only great at doing one very specific thing. It's all about compromises and smart decision-making.

*No dev can ever hope to release an all-in-one because every library is limited by decision-making:*

Decisions to record and engineer a certain way
Decisions on where to record
Decisions to have players perform a certain way
Decisions on which articulations to capture
Decisions on how those articulations should be captured through the dynamic range
Decisions on how much detail and how many dynamics and other layers should be recorded
Compromises on what and how things should be recorded with programming in mind
Decisions on how to edit and process all of this content in preparation for the programming process
Decisions on how to program all of the content on each patch that comes through the pipe
Decisions to program in creative functionality that allows extra expression and tweaking
Decisions on how to organize and deliver the content to users
Decisions on how to enforce quality control and consistency, and how much should be applied at each stage of the process, from recording to editing to programming to delivery
Decisions on how to price their efforts based on the amount of work up to release and how the dev values the end result of their work
So we pick and choose. We find the things that can do what we want them to do or we find creative ways to get the things we already have to do new things that don't reveal themselves straight out of the box.

Every library will approach all of these things in slightly or dramatically different ways, and all of them have a knock-on effect all the way down to the user using them. If the user using them then decides to use a library in a way the developer didn't intend or account for, fails to find creative solutions, and starts banging their head against the wall, then who's fault is it?


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 23, 2021)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> I don't think Logic Pro has plateaued, because it still has not incorporated Spotlight for searching in the DAW. I am utterly flabbergasted that Apple did not do this on almost Day 1...
> Still, something to look forward to


logic is using spotlight for searching missing samples.


----------



## SupremeFist (Mar 23, 2021)

There's a hard limit to how much "playability" of sample libraries can improve as long as we're all trying to play expressive continuous instruments using an imitation of a percussion instrument (a keyboard) as the input device, plus a few wheel/fader kludges.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 23, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> But doesn't the very point you make underscore the OP's question?
> 
> I don't think anybody minds putting in the work, but if it takes an Andy Blaney to make a good mock up it's a huge huge problem...
> 
> ...


@Paul Cardon and @Sarah Mancuso answered this perfectly IMO. For most of us, we are not just composers but producers as well. Or if you are solely a composer, then why complain about the sound of the mockup? If you complain, then you care about the production and therefore, you must produce! Too many complaints on this forum are down to the fact that people don't want to do the work that others are willing to do with the same tool. Hans had posted a mockup from Gladiator that was made entirely with samples from back in the day - before there was "true legato" I believe. And it still beats 95% of the mockups that are using today's tools. There's a huge remaining potential with today's sample libraries that remains untapped by customers.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 23, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> @NoamL is spot on. To quote myself from the AROOF thread from 6 months ago:
> 
> 
> Perhaps we are also asking the wrong question. Have sample libraries plateaued? Depends on how you look at it. Does that matter? Not sure. If anything, the overwhelming majority of customers have not maximized the potential of the current batch of libraries. If we had, all our mock ups would be as good as Andy Blaney's or Thomas Bergersen's. Perhaps what's really plateaued is our abilities. But then again this forum seems to be mostly compromised of sample library collectors and critics rather than musicians making music


There’s an uncomfortable truth here. For the most part (and I include myself) it’s the composer who’s the weak link in the chain.

Have they plateaued? Yes and no. The sort of improvements that VIC generally requests of libraries tend to be ones that would improve workflow, but not the end musical result. To improve the music, it all comes down to brains and fingers, as it always has. There’s no getting around that.


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

Alex Fraser said:


> There’s an uncomfortable truth here. For the most part (and I include myself) it’s the composer who’s the weak link in the chain.
> 
> Have they plateaued? Yes and no. The sort of improvements that VIC generally requests of libraries tend to be ones that would improve workflow, but not the end musical result. To improve the music, it all comes down to brains and fingers, as it always has. There’s no getting around that.


I made a similar point earlier that we could be the weakness because we are not asking for more or even using effectively what we already have.


----------



## ZeroZero (Mar 23, 2021)

If you take just one instrument, say a sax, there are so many variables. First there is the instrument - the sound of a Selmer is very different to a King, then there are mouthpieces, plastic (yuck) ebonite, metal and so many types of. Then there are reeds too, many types cane and metal. Further there are the types of players, Stan Getz is very different to Ben Webster or Coltrane. That's about expression. 
Same goes for any other insrtrument, a military player sounds nothing like Chet Atkins, or Miles Davis.
There is so much in transitions. I have never believed that real notes could be emulated by ADSR. Every note is a universe in its own right not a clone. No string has ever been struck the same twice, no reed blown the same way twice. Everyone's embrouchure is different and a product of years of work, so is their timing and phrasing.
If ever we are going to get near to capturing all this we need modelling. Sampling just does not cut it. I think of Sampling as two dimensional, like rtrying to build a model of a three dimensional object using a series of 2d snapshots, its never going to capture reality. We need unique modelling techniques for each type of instrument and an interface that can express it's parameters - intuitively. Perhaps some kind of interface that could capture a basic performance authenticaly then open up the parameters so that a compioser can tweak using a musical rather than a engineering interface. Imagine say a saxophone wher one could change a reed, even a player, or use an alternative fingerings as one can on a sax.
Each instrument requires a different modelling approach.

Z


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Mar 23, 2021)

babylonwaves said:


> logic is using spotlight for searching missing samples.


Thanks for that... any idea when they will use it for searching plugins... much like other DAWs?


----------



## chocobitz825 (Mar 23, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> @Paul Cardon and @Sarah Mancuso answered this perfectly IMO. For most of us, we are not just composers but producers as well. Or if you are solely a composer, then why complain about the sound of the mockup? If you complain, then you care about the production and therefore, you must produce! Too many complaints on this forum are down to the fact that people don't want to do the work that others are willing to do with the same tool. Hans had posted a mockup from Gladiator that was made entirely with samples from back in the day - before there was "true legato" I believe. And it still beats 95% of the mockups that are using today's tools. There's a huge remaining potential with today's sample libraries that remains untapped by customers.


mastery of a tool well enough to make up for its flaws and inefficiencies is a weird place to flex. The tools provide the tone we need for the tasks at hand, but they could be much easier to use. They could push the boundaries more. They could be more playable. We could also aim to have libraries and instruments that aren't limited to the idea of simply replicating acoustic performances. Mastery will always be required for any tool, but if we're talking about the future, I still think our mindsets hold a lot of the progress back because we spend most of our time with orchestral libraries moaning about how it's not as good as the real thing instead of moving forward and thinking about what can be done creatively with the unnatural.


----------



## Jiffster (Mar 23, 2021)

Markrs said:


> There is no doubt there have be good iterative improvements, but lots of libraries out there are often 10+ years old, but loads of people still use them. Have we in truth in reached a plateau where the costs of libraries are getting cheaper but there isn't much innovation going on?
> 
> I think this might be the same situation with, DAWs, midi controllers and synths. The only thing that seems to massively improve is the reduction in purchase price (maybe not MSRP, but more the regular sale price), which is probably in part explained but increasing number of users rather than just down to a reduction in costs.


Interesting question. 

Specifically in terms of DAWs, Reaper has been something of a game changer in terms of innovation relatively recently


----------



## Markrs (Mar 23, 2021)

Jiffster said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> Specifically in terms of DAWs, Reaper has been something of a game changer in terms of innovation relatively recently


I use Reaper, and personally I feel most of the innovation comes from the community action scripts, rather than reaper themselves. Similar to how the innovative in Kontakt have come about through using KSP.


----------



## youngpokie (Mar 23, 2021)

Sarah Mancuso said:


> Doing _anything_ well requires skill and dedication. Yes, there are still ways to make the process more painless, but you still have to learn what you're doing to get great results.





ALittleNightMusic said:


> @Paul Cardon and @Sarah Mancuso answered this perfectly IMO. For most of us, we are not just composers but producers as well. Or if you are solely a composer, then why complain about the sound of the mockup? If you complain, then you care about the production and therefore, you must produce! Too many complaints on this forum are down to the fact that people don't want to do the work that others are willing to do with the same tool.


I don't think anyone ever objected to the notion that doing anything well requires skill and dedication. This misses the point, at least as I understood it.

It's always tempting (and easy) to imply that, in essence, you're too lazy to use this or that amazing product. Or that it takes years to learn to use it. Or that the composer is the problem, not the software. 

Of course, for those who did spend years learning it, it can also be differentiating and status building to say this.

But I think the point is not to blame the user. And not to offer essentially the same product, repackaged multiple times. It is to innovate to make your product more intuitive, easier to use and capable of doing more with less effort.


----------



## Casiquire (Mar 23, 2021)

Rasoul Morteza said:


> Current sampling methods don't allow you to go too far. Physical modelling will be the next step forward, but I believe it needs a good decacde of development.


I actually disagree. I think there are many steps forward still with sampling. Look at Staffpad and Birth of the Trumpet: imagine a system that sees the notes coming well in advance, and the next notes after that, and knows how to intelligently stitch together actual live performances as much as possible. You could record even longer transitions, and it can read modwheel swells and dynamics but splice in actual prerecorded dynamic changes. You could have the software intelligently respond to other instructions like "Mysterioso" or "Grandioso", and incorporate prerecorded runs and ostinatos when it sees such notes coming up. All of this is completely possible with our current sampling technology and methods. It just takes tons of work!


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 23, 2021)

chocobitz825 said:


> mastery of a tool well enough to make up for its flaws and inefficiencies is a weird place to flex. The tools provide the tone we need for the tasks at hand, but they could be much easier to use. They could push the boundaries more. They could be more playable. We could also aim to have libraries and instruments that aren't limited to the idea of simply replicating acoustic performances. Mastery will always be required for any tool, but if we're talking about the future, I still think our mindsets hold a lot of the progress back because we spend most of our time with orchestral libraries moaning about how it's not as good as the real thing instead of moving forward and thinking about what can be done creatively with the unnatural.


Are we talking about overcoming flaws or are we talking about leveraging strengths? You wouldn't use a hammer as a screwdriver, but some users on Vi-C are trying to do just that with libraries - and then complaining the library is flawed. However, if you look at the work created by the library by folks that have focused on exploiting the strengths to a very high level (like a great craftsman), then perhaps the tool isn't necessarily flawed at all, only our ability to wield it effectively.

I understand the argument for more playability, easier to use, etc. and don't necessarily disagree (although frankly, most sample libraries are fairly easy to use IMO), but I've seen it often comes from folks that have not demonstrated an ability to leverage the strengths of the tool. Will those improvements actually improve the output of the tool when used in these hands? I don't think so honestly. If you can't wield a hammer properly, are you really going to create something great with a better hammer?

I do completely agree with your last sentence though. I would be personally very interested to hear what Andy Blaney and Thomas B would like to see as leap forwards with sample libraries given they are squeezing every ounce out of the current evolution.


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Hans had posted a mockup from Gladiator that was made entirely with samples from back in the day


Do you have a link to this? I'm really curious. I was listening to "The Road to El Dorado" score the other day and I could swear that some of the instruments are samples but most people wouldn't be able to tell probably as they just get lost in the music.



ALittleNightMusic said:


> Too many complaints on this forum are down to the fact that people don't want to do the work that others are willing to do with the same tool.


I agree with you here to an extent. There probably is a lot we can do with these libraries if we spent the time to tweak everything and I've heard some incredible mockups where I was almost sure it was real with the way the articulations changed and the way the way the expression was handled. But those mockups probably took a ridiculously long time of adjusting to get to that point. There's a few reasons why I have an issue with this.

1. For me, this sucks out the joy of making music. What I find with some libraries is that there will be large chunks when I'm playing where I go "okay, this is going to take a bit of midi editing later on" and it takes me out of the performance.

2. Deadlines are getting so ridiculously short now. The way I see it, if these libraries can perform as well as they sound it gives us a lot more time to focus on the piece itself rather than focussing so much on the sound and the midi editing.

This is of course just my personal opinion and experience but before I switched to Infinite and sample modelling I got really put off writing anything. I'd come up with a piece on the piano, suddenly have the drive to make the whole track and then all the joy just got sucked out which left a lot of unfinished projects on my hard drive.

Now I'm enjoying the process so much more because the ideas are just so much easier to get down and when I'm performing I can feel the emotion and it becomes so exciting. Then when I give it to someone to listen to and there's a moment in the track where their face beams with excitement cause they feel the emotion as well is just so satisfying. I've even fooled a few people into thinking I got a real player for a few solos at one point and I'm nowhere near as good a player as some of the others people I've heard, god I'm nowhere close!

And people can say what they want whether the sound of something like Infinite isn't as good as some of the other libraries and that may be true, but whenever I get notes back it's never an issue with the sounds of the samples but more on the piece itself. "I don't like this section, I think it gets to slow" or "can we have a bigger build up here" etc.I think maybe once someone said they thought the strings sounded really harsh for the piece but that could have been my playing as well. But the pieces are quick to get out, I can focus on the music, they are happy and I'm happy I didn't stare at a midi editor for hours.

I realise I've went on a tangent here but baisically with whatever task I'm doing I want a tool that allows me to focus more on the most important thing and that's the music itself and I would love to see more companies release libraries that focus on that a bit more. If it can be done with much smaller companies then I can only imagine what the larger companies can do. 

Anyway, sorry about the novel haha. Interested to see that Hans Zimmer mockup.


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

Markrs said:


> I use Reaper, and personally I feel most of the innovation comes from the community action scripts, rather than reaper themselves. Similar to how the innovative in Kontakt have come about through using KSP.


This is true but damn you got to love how dedicated the community is. I don't think there's been a time where I've thought "I wonder if it's possible to do this in reaper" and then find someones made it happen. I discovered in a tutorial the other day that cuebase has a feature to switch articulations in the midi editor and I thought "can you do that in reaper? that would be useful" and low and behold someone had made a script for it.

I think the script takes a bit of time to setup compared to how cuebase has it but I can't really complain cause this person decided to come up with it in their own time and give it away for free.

It would be quite good if there was a system where you can point to a script someone has made and have a team or something develop it further using the code that exists. Maybe give the original creator some money for it too or something. I don't know how any of that stuff works so I don't know if that's feasible, but wouldn't it be nice if it was haha.


----------



## youngpokie (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> 1. For me, this sucks out the joy of making music.


OMG, yes yes and a hundred times yes to this. I have 3 longish pieces written that I honestly dread putting into DAW because I know what will happen.


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> OMG, yes yes and a hundred times yes to this. I have 3 longish pieces written that I honestly dread putting into DAW because I know what will happen.


I know right?! I've got a piece that I wrote on the piano nearly 10 years ago or something and I've tried and tried to put it into my DAW for years and I just can't do it. There's too many articulation changes needed and I love the piece too much to torture myself with the midi editing. I think the brass and woodwind parts work better now but still waiting for a good playable string library since it's mainly for strings. Hoping Infinite strings is the one to bring it to life. 

Was hoping sample modeling strings would have done the job but I was a little dissappointed with it. Maybe they'll bring out an update or something but it's not as good as the brass library.


----------



## youngpokie (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> There's too many articulation changes needed and I love the piece too much to torture myself with the midi editing.


.... you keep coming up with these lines that I could co-sign with blood...


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 23, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I understand the argument for more playability, easier to use, etc. and don't necessarily disagree (although frankly, most sample libraries are fairly easy to use IMO)


Yep, I agree. Taken by themselves, libraries are easy to use.

It's the 1000 track templates/slave PCs/touchscreens/pre-delay tables etc we throw at them that make the process more complex.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> Do you have a link to this? I'm really curious. I was listening to "The Road to El Dorado" score the other day and I could swear that some of the instruments are samples but most people wouldn't be able to tell probably as they just get lost in the music.
> 
> 
> I agree with you here to an extent. There probably is a lot we can do with these libraries if we spent the time to tweak everything and I've heard some incredible mockups where I was almost sure it was real with the way the articulations changed and the way the way the expression was handled. But those mockups probably took a ridiculously long time of adjusting to get to that point. There's a few reasons why I have an issue with this.
> ...


And that's a fair complaint in that you want a tool that allows you to focus more on the parts of the process you prefer. This is where the production side of things comes into play. Now, in contrast to you, I find the tone of Infinite takes _me_ out of the music - as does the so called "playability" (much easier to figure out how to get certain articulations to playback when the library has that articulation actually recorded IMO than trying to figure out how to get the Infinite script to fake it or endlessly tweaking the MIDI for similar results). So, which approach is right? Well both it would seem 

And re. deadlines, remember the composers that have to deliver 20-30 minutes of music per week, week after week, are using the same libraries as we are - and making it work somehow.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 23, 2021)

And here's that Hans track https://vi-control.net/community/th...ne-completely-in-the-box.100121/#post-4666883


----------



## allen-garvey (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> Anyway, sorry about the novel haha. Interested to see that Hans Zimmer mockup.


Here is the link: https://vi-control.net/community/th...ne-completely-in-the-box.100121/#post-4666883


----------



## allen-garvey (Mar 23, 2021)

DAW-wise something that is missing is a good way to work with tempo, both within a bar and over a whole piece in general. Songs are set at a constant tempo and all parts are quantized since that is easiest way to remove the feeling of rhythmic sloppiness, even though it might to be the maximally musical result. Similarly, rubato, free time or pauses between phrases are used infrequently since they are either too hard or too time consuming to put in. As far as new music nowadays jazz and classical are really the only places you will consistently find music without a click track, and it is so refreshing to hear music where everything is not quantized, and the tempo can ebb and flow freely. Rick Beato has a video on this focused on rock music


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> as does the so called "playability" (much easier to figure out how to get certain articulations to playback when the library has that articulation actually recorded IMO than trying to figure out how to get the Infinite script to fake it or endlessly tweaking the MIDI for similar results).



This is a fair argument. It can take a bit of getting used to and it would be nice if there was an articulation switch for something's like rips, glissandos etc. In an ideal world maybe you'd be able to have both to suit how different people work.

Yeah at the end of the day we all have our ways of working. Would just be nice if there were more options. I would honestly love spitfire to come up with something that played as well as infinite, with the spitfire sound and maybe a few different articulations as well. But I doubt such a library would ever exist because then we'd need to buy fewer libraries haha.



ALittleNightMusic said:


> And re. deadlines, remember the composers that have to deliver 20-30 minutes of music per week, week after week, are using the same libraries as we are - and making it work somehow.



This is true, but I feel a lot of music now is based around the strength of the libraries as a result which just seems wrong to me. If you're on a tight deadline you kind of have to write to the strength of the library as more often than not writing a piece and translating it into the library would take more time as it requires much more editing. This is from the examples I've heard anyway. They either sound really good but don't really have much going for them musically or the music is really good but the sound maybe lacking (if the deadline is tight anyway) if you have plenty of time then yeah it's achievable. But that's just from what I've seen. There's so much on the internet I've probably missed. I'm always looking for ways to improve myself so maybe there's something in these libraries I've been missing. But more often than not something will stick out like a sore thumb when I'm playing that I find jarring.

Also that mockup was awesome and I have nothing else to say about it haha.


----------



## Duncan Formosa (Mar 23, 2021)

allen-garvey said:


> DAW-wise something that is missing is a good way to work with tempo, both within a bar and over a whole piece in general. Songs are set at a constant tempo and all parts are quantized since that is easiest way to remove the feeling of rhythmic sloppiness, even though it might to be the maximally musical result. Similarly, rubato, free time or pauses between phrases are used infrequently since they are either too hard or too time consuming to put in. As far as new music nowadays jazz and classical are really the only places you will consistently find music without a click track, and it is so refreshing to hear music where everything is not quantized, and the tempo can ebb and flow freely. Rick Beato has a video on this focused on rock music




I totally agree with this. I think a cool feature I'd love to see is some kind of tap tempo as the music is playing, almost as if you're conducting the piece. So you would record to a click, maybe quantize here and there etc and then go over the piece again and tap the tempo and it records the tempo as you go.


----------



## BasariStudios (Mar 23, 2021)

This is what you get when a Guitarist tries to be John Williams 
on his own and a Drummer wants to play an Accordeon while
the Accordeon Player started playing a Cowbell.
You get all kinds of crazy things.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Mar 23, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> @NoamL is spot on. To quote myself from the AROOF thread from 6 months ago:
> 
> 
> Perhaps we are also asking the wrong question. Have sample libraries plateaued? Depends on how you look at it. Does that matter? Not sure. If anything, the overwhelming majority of customers have not maximized the potential of the current batch of libraries. If we had, all our mock ups would be as good as Andy Blaney's or Thomas Bergersen's. Perhaps what's really plateaued is our abilities. But then again this forum seems to be mostly compromised of sample library collectors and critics rather than musicians making music


Spot on. Blaming the tools at this point is a distraction from deeper issues. This is the Scaler generation. Back in the days of Bach it was required for ALL composers to be able to improvise a fugue on spot. Most VI composers can barely plunk out a few notes...


----------



## chocobitz825 (Mar 23, 2021)

InLight-Tone said:


> Spot on. Blaming the tools at this point is a distraction from deeper issues...


is it though? I mean, I get the valid argument of people not mastering their tools, but if you're a composer or even a producer, how are midi offset, attack times, odd crossfades, slightly off sampling, and adjusting to awkward timing differences in various libraries our job? 

I kinda get this with people who want PCs over Macs because they can adjust the hardware to their likings. Swapping out hard drives, and sound cards, and graphics cards is really not our job as composers. If anything all those technical tasks are things you'd get an assistant to do, if you had the resources, specifically because it's not our job as composers to spend our time fiddling with and adjusting to the hardware's quirks. 

For the sake of completing the job with the tools we have, it has become a task we must do, but if we could eliminate any of those processes that distract from the direct goal of writing music, isn't that better?

I mean..sure I could make a smoothie with just some fruit and a knife...but I'm not gonna complain if you give me a blender instead...


----------



## storyteller (Mar 23, 2021)

I think there is plenty left to explore in the traditional sampling world. However, I think a lot of people have a concept that "innovation" is supposed to mean "take this thought out of my brain and make it sound good." Those are two entirely different concepts. Music *should* always take some work to produce.

I also think that if the sampling world froze over and no more content came out, people would certainly uncover the true potential in the libraries collecting dust on their SSDs... 

Lastly, I think it says something about how incredibly blessed we are today with the current sample libraries when I can hear HZ's Sketch track on the Man of Steel soundtrack (which was a purely sampled track), or his demo tracks on the WW84 album and enjoy them as much as the live-orchestra tracks on the album.


----------



## dflood (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> For me, this sucks out the joy of making music. What I find with some libraries is that there will be large chunks when I'm playing where I go "okay, this is going to take a bit of midi editing later on" and it takes me out of the performance.


I think this is the plateau we are currently stuck on. There is a long way to go in terms of playability particularly when it comes to the most expressive solo instruments.

I have so many great sounding libraries, but only a few, like the Joshua Bell Violin and Birth of the Trumpet that sound truly great out of the box without some serious midi editing later (I know, technically, the magic with Birth of the Trumpet happens after recording, but it still sounds pretty good as you are playing it in and then fantastic on playback with Smart Delay read-ahead engaged). There's a lot more progress to be made on this front, and we also have a long, long way to go with making word based solo and harmony vocal performances realistic sounding and easier to sequence. 

I know that some people regard the difficulty of extracting great performances from sample libraries as a sort of rite of passage necessary to gain entrance to the Guild. It follows then, that if we encounter difficulties, we must just be lazy or lack the required talent. But this is computer music, and unlike physical instruments there are no inherent properties making it necessarily difficult to master. Why then, should developers not strive to make it as easy as possible to create great sounding performances?


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 23, 2021)

Duncan Formosa said:


> This is true, but I feel a lot of music now is based around the strength of the libraries as a result which just seems wrong to me. If you're on a tight deadline you kind of have to write to the strength of the library as more often than not writing a piece and translating it into the library would take more time as it requires much more editing. This is from the examples I've heard anyway. They either sound really good but don't really have much going for them musically or the music is really good but the sound maybe lacking (if the deadline is tight anyway) if you have plenty of time then yeah it's achievable. But that's just from what I've seen. There's so much on the internet I've probably missed. I'm always looking for ways to improve myself so maybe there's something in these libraries I've been missing. But more often than not something will stick out like a sore thumb when I'm playing that I find jarring.


Bit of chicken and egg though no? For example, let's look at something like Spitfire CDT. It is made for media composers, as they have explicitly stated, but media composers have been making this type of music for long before the library came out, so what drove what? And then there's a question of well what about concert music, but go look at VSL demos or even OT / Spitfire demos for their full orchestral library packages. So is the music based on the strength of the libraries or is it the production that's based on the strength (different libraries have different strengths)?



chocobitz825 said:


> is it though? I mean, I get the valid argument of people not mastering their tools, but if you're a composer or even a producer, how are midi offset, attack times, odd crossfades, slightly off sampling, and adjusting to awkward timing differences in various libraries our job?


I agree with this - but I also think the severity of a lot of "issues" are overstated when it comes to doing the job.


----------



## audio1 (Mar 23, 2021)

There's a lot more to this. First, its really cheap compared to real musicians who were replaced by this tech. The tech is also a great ROI. I mean, a really good bass library is about what it cost to hire really good live bass player once. But, we're also very close to the point of generic redundancy. Every one sounds the same to a certain extent. Even the developers sound like themselves with new products. It also kinda sucks always working alone. Its lonely and not at all interactive. The best stuff happens thru collaboration via human interaction, things you don't plan out or create. I feel extremely fortunate for all the live sessions I was apart of. To this day I can remember what certain musicians would do and sort have their moves and approaches memorized. Bottom line is, there is no going back. But what is interesting is, even with an oversaturated VI market place, will it get better with all this great cheap software? Meaning, if developers have a hard time making a living producing VI's, will anything new and ground breaking come to life? Also missing is, people/clients cared who they worked with and had creative relationships with composers. Almost like a music guru. That is lost as well. Now they entrust middle man "guru's" who don't create music to "seek and find" it. Composers have taken a back seat to middle men. Composers had a window that has mostly closed. Same will happen with VI developers too. When you see NI and Izotope announcing a merger that's a big tell.


----------



## FrankieD (Mar 23, 2021)

With the growth of AI it is imaginable that synths will become better at emulating live instruments than samples. These would be more flexible and potentially easier to use. The growth of computer technology, only 70 years old, is enormous and unrelenting. Then the VI guru's will be replaced with mathematicians. AI is composers greatest threat and potential savior.


----------



## dflood (Mar 23, 2021)

Mike T said:


> I wish I were more enthusiastic about the future of modeling and semi-modeling.


Assuming they can get the timbre right, that still leaves a gazillion parameters to adjust on the fly. Some sort of performance ‘personality’ presets are needed to make these things behave more like a professional player would. After all, when you hire a session player, is it their instrument you are most interested in, or how well they play?


----------



## CT (Mar 23, 2021)

Yeah, part of what I meant by not wanting to lose the human element even if it seemed sonically permissible. It's something that I don't think will ever be satisfyingly faked and it seems silly to try.


----------



## Trash Panda (Mar 23, 2021)

BasariStudios said:


> This is what you get when a Guitarist tries to be John Williams


I feel attacked.


----------



## Saxer (Mar 23, 2021)

DAWs are simple piano rolls with a lot of plugins around. Having a song position line triggering events when it moves across is still music box technology. A DAW in a computer should "know" where the notes are and should recognize "legatos" even if there are not used primitive overlapping NOTE-ON and NOTE-OFF events. A DAW should know when different transitions has to be triggered and adjust the timing and correct levels. It's incredible that adjusting the dynamic of strings and woodwinds for a few bars need manual correction of drawn or recorded controller curves of 25 separate tracks. A conductor would just move the hands down to have an orchestra playing softer.

So yes, we are in DAW middle age. Thinking "musically" would be: this parts could be played with some more edge and accents to contrast the soft resolution in bar 33. Make a hard break in style on this fermata. Hold it longer. Make the room bigger... not so much... yes, ok! Now add a string quartet... let them play staccato in this rhythm: (sing: ) Tamtaram-TamTadadam. G-minor.


----------



## audio1 (Mar 23, 2021)

Here's an issue for the future, in general, there are very few dev coders who might have music abilities and interests. We have a Kontakt and plug in developers, but all of them are stuck on 10 year old code that gets updated to work on new OS's. Yes, they do make improvements, but that's not where the future is. I can only imagine the technical debt involved too. So the way I see it is, the big idea's are always there, but who's gonna design and build them out into a product? Look at Spitfire and OTs. They built there own engines, partially so they can. move when the want without having to be reliant on NI, but also to be able to do things the way they want, but all that takes a ton of time and investment while trying to stay in today's game as well. Its a moving target for sure and, just cause a company has created their own sample playback engine doesn't mean they will be the future. NI is now a distributor, with partners trying to leave them. I still don't get the Izotope NI thing other then owners looking to cash out thru venture capital.....and VCs are not in it for the long term.


----------



## Loïc D (Mar 23, 2021)

I don’t know...
My plateau of skills is still far below the plateau of libraries and DAWs.
I can’t really see it even if I stand on a ladder...
Sometimes travellers would take about the plateau of DAW so I guess it exists somewhere.


----------



## peladio (Mar 24, 2021)

InLight-Tone said:


> Spot on. Blaming the tools at this point is a distraction from deeper issues. This is the Scaler generation. Back in the days of Bach it was required for ALL composers to be able to improvise a fugue on spot. Most VI composers can barely plunk out a few notes...


I think you hit the nail on the head..

In my opinion people focus way too much on the gear instead of working on their skills..

I always find it funny when people blame the tools..I couldn't disagree more that we're in middle age. We are in Golden age of technology..could you imagine what Mozart or Bach could do with all of these options and possibilities? 20 years ago you couldn't dream of having a whole orchestra on a cheap laptop..

Now you could record and mix a top 10 album on a laptop with audio interface and 100 dollar headphones..

I always laugh when people on guitar forums trash Epiphone guitars when a Casino was the only thing Lennon ever used..

If you blame the tools nowadays..you should work on your skills and not waste money on another 'game changer' because your tools aren't the problem..

On a side note..if people wanted inventive and new they wouldn't waste thousands on 40 year old mono synths, vintage barely playing guitars or 79th Spitfire string library that sounds and plays the same as the previous one..there's a reason they earn millions and they are well aware that innovating isn't neccessary to make big bucks..


----------



## gyprock (Mar 24, 2021)

There's still a lot of room for integration of developer's libraries with DAWs so we can focus on composing. Studio One and VSL with their sound variations is a good example. Imagine if you could load any sample developer's library into any DAW and the articulations are automatically mapped out along with templates/presets for hardware controllers and ipad or Android apps. Think about the number of cars on the road today that are using Apple CarPlay to integrate navigation and entertainment services. This is what we need in the DAW world. The widgets are done. We need to integrate them into a DAW solution.

At the moment we are still buying libraries, creating templates and fiddling with technology before we can compose. Imagine buying a car, tyres and spark plugs from different vendors and then having to be your own mechanic before you can drive from A to B. This is the stage we are at in the DAW world although it is getting a lot better. So no, we have not plateaued.


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 24, 2021)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> Thanks for that... any idea when they will use it for searching plugins... much like other DAWs?


@Shad0wLandsUK
do you mean choosing a plug-in by typing the name? I have no clue what makes this one so hard for them. But in the meantime I use this tool, it has solved that issue for me:









PlugSearch Product Page


PlugSearch 2 is no longer available, and has been updated to PlugSearch 3. Support is still available for PlugSearch 2.




speakerfood.com


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 24, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> OMG, yes yes and a hundred times yes to this. I have 3 longish pieces written that I honestly dread putting into DAW because I know what will happen.


Like somebody remarked earlier... 

The modern (media) composer is a producer as well.

If we could write and just wait for our pieces to be played by the Berlin Philharmonic and recorded at Abbey Road it could be awesome sure!

Part of the skill is not just coming up with interesting, emotional and intricate melodies and chords... Part of the skill is using the tools that are at our disposal to make it sound great and as realistic, convincing, as possible.

I am not saying it is a good thing (imagine Mozart having to learn Expression Maps instead of writing a couple of pieces), but it is how things are at the moment.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Mar 24, 2021)

gyprock said:


> At the moment we are still buying libraries, creating templates and fiddling with technology before we can compose.


"At the moment we are still buying libraries, creating templates and fiddling with technology before we can compose instead of composing.

Fixed it for ya. 😉


----------



## youngpokie (Mar 24, 2021)

peladio said:


> I always find it funny when people blame the tools..I couldn't disagree more that we're in middle age. We are in Golden age of technology..could you imagine what Mozart or Bach could do with all of these options and possibilities? 20 years ago you couldn't dream of having a whole orchestra on a cheap laptop..


Mozart and pretty much most of the greats were:

- child prodigies
- dedicated an entire lifetime to studying composition, orchestration
- spent exactly ZERO hours studying crossfades, MIDI controllers, drum maps, etc

You're completely right in the sense that many many more people now have access to an orchestra that's emulated in the software. But there is a cost to this access - since the emulation is so crude, you need to develop a whole new set of skills and master the tools just to make it sound vaguely realistic. 

That's really where the issue is - a brand new skill set required NOT for composing, orchestrating, etc - but simply to compensate and overcome the crude imitation that is today's samples. 

This means you need to significantly reduce time dedicated to composition/study of music and redirect it towards mastering the software for MIDI editing and then mastering the software for mixing. 

There is a reason that so much of the user posted music in this forum is so short and so empty musically. The software shifts the focus onto itself and takes up a huge amount of time. And let's be honest - most of the things that we have to do in the software are mind-numbing and tedious. They require continuous replay of the same few bars and that ends up making you hate your own music!


----------



## chocobitz825 (Mar 24, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> most of the things that we have to do in the software are mind-numbing and tedious. They require continuous replay of the same few bars and that ends up making you hate your own music!


preach!


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 24, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Mozart and pretty much most of the greats were:
> 
> - child prodigies
> - dedicated an entire lifetime to studying composition, orchestration
> ...


I agree in general.

But hey, we are talking about a huge huge thing here. A huge ask from reality.

To be able to emulate faithfully a full orchestra made out of tens of musicians. The tens of hands that move the bows that screeches the combined thousands of horse hair resonating in bespoke hand built wooden boxes, tens of people breathing in weirdly shaped tubes, in a complex room made of millions of reflections interacting with each other....
All these tens with firm hands and firm breathes obtained thanks to year of practice and study.

I am still amazed after many years that by pressing a shitty plastic button on a shitty plastic keyboard I hear a wonderful and alive note coming from 30-100 players in an amazing room recorded incredibly with great gear and expert engineers.

Therefore what is a bit of MIDI massaging compared to being NOT able to do any of that?

The options are: 
-hire a full orchestra in a great room
-hire someone else to mock up your compositions
-write only for small ensembles such as quartets
-not write for classical instruments and start an EDM DJ career
-wait for sample libraries to actually fully plateau
-learn and get amazing also at the production side of the job .


----------



## Dietz (Mar 24, 2021)

I didn't read the whole thread, but this statement is worth a second thought:



AudioLoco said:


> As for effects plugins... wow we are there basically. Yes, most (or all) outboard gear still sounds better then its digital counterparts (I compared many times first hand).


Might be true, but looking at the mix I'm working on ATM at least 50 percent of all used processors weren't even conceivable in a purely analogue studio environment (which is were I come from, BTW). They make all the difference, and I'm not seeing any kind of "plateau" in that context - quite contrary.


----------



## Peter Williams (Mar 24, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> Mozart and pretty much most of the greats were:
> 
> - child prodigies
> - dedicated an entire lifetime to studying composition, orchestration
> ...


So the work effort required of a composer/musician seems the same to me as ever. To be proficient on an instrument you must practice for years, playing scales, arpeggios, trills, special techniques and nowadays numerous extended techniques. You are not exempt from this if you decide to be a composer, for the midi and audio world demand an amazing chunk of your time and dedication if you wish to be proficient enough to develop your own sound. In addition, we must develop useful musicianship by studying and listening to the best from our past. True, there are some prodigies who find things easy to master, and pop idols who find may take short cuts, letting loops and algorithms determine the bulk of the content, but they must operate within fairly narrow limits. We've all experienced the issue of software pushing the limits of hardware, and we should expect that to continue, sometimes in unexpected ways. We're already getting sample libraries with multiple microphone choices and melodic, alternative sequences to choose on the fly, triggered by relational decision trees. These choice elements will become much more prevalent, in modeled and in sampled content. Lot's of fun for all, but we'll need to be able to use this intelligently and effectively.


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 24, 2021)

Dietz said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, but this statement is worth a second thought:
> 
> 
> Might be true, but looking at the mix I'm working on ATM at least 50 percent of all used processors weren't even conceivable in a purely analogue studio environment (which is were I come from, BTW). They make all the difference, and I'm not seeing any kind of "plateau" in that context - quite contrary.


Sorry not sure I understand what you mean 
Do you mean stuff like Sooth and the likes?


----------



## audio1 (Mar 24, 2021)

peladio said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head..
> 
> In my opinion people focus way too much on the gear instead of working on their skills..
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone was was "blaming" the tools? The discussion is about, "where will it go from here" regardless of how great things are now. It is getting a little boring and very redundant, which is not good for creative inspiration. That is not a complaint, just an observation. With that, I think the likely company to push things forward to a new dimension might be VSL. They do not rely on NI and are government backed, to a certain degree. I also view this as part of the whole music business. When examined, the music biz is up side down with less and less upside for many. This end is not that dissimilar from the record business in that over saturation has created disruption with a cause and effect that has pushed revenue and incomes down to levels that were unthinkable even 10 years ago. The same thing is happening in music software now as a bi-product, its following that curve and race to the bottom. Just look at the deals section. Everything is a a "deal" now making it super cheap. And, the only way Developers can make more money is by releasing more and more of the same hoping the marketing pushes a product over. Repeat rinse wash.


----------



## Dietz (Mar 24, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> Sorry not sure I understand what you mean
> Do you mean stuff like Sooth and the likes?


Just a few examples: Any convolution-based plug-in, any sample-based and any FFT-based one; e.g. linear-phase filters, massive multi-band dynamics, spectral manipulation and/or restoration, re-synthesis, virtual rooms (MIR!  ...).

We should also add all the new and/or improved ways of signal visualization.

If we expand the viewing angle: Mixing on a meta-data-level like we do for ATMOS, or virtual 3D by means of HRTF-based binauralization ... The list would be very, very long if we would dig into it.


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 24, 2021)

Dietz said:


> Just a few examples: Any convolution-based plug-in, any sample-based and any FFT-based one; e.g. linear-phase filters, massive multi-band dynamics, spectral manipulation and/or restoration, re-synthesis, virtual rooms (MIR!  ...).
> 
> W should also add all the new and/or improved ways of signal visualisation.
> 
> If we expand the viewing angle: Mixing on a meta-data-level like we do for ATMOS, or virtual 3D by means of HRTF-based binauralization ... The list would be very, very long if we would dig into it.


Yes agreed! 
Stuff like RX, Melodyne etc can do science fiction things to the signal.

Although hardware still has the (slightly) upper hand when we are talking about emulations, and the actual bread and butter tasks like compressing and EQing still sounds better on analog equipment.

When top mastering engineers will completely stop using their analog compressors and EQs, then one part of the "mission" will be complete and Nirvana will be reached. 

Then the other part of development is completely open to any type of innovation and you are right, sky is the limit.


----------



## youngpokie (Mar 24, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> But hey, we are talking about a huge huge thing here. A huge ask from reality.



I mean, my first "DAW" was Cakewalk in the mid 1990s. I don't think audio tracks were possible yet at that time AFAIR. Compare that with AROF today and maybe the ask doesn't seem all that huge anymore. The question is whether or not it will take another 25 years for the next leap forward to happen.

It's also true that innovation is not a continuous process, it happens in bursts. For every breakthrough, such as "VST" by Steinberg, "sample player" by NI, "true legato" by VSL you will have companies in the interim that advance incrementally: 7 mic positions vs 1; 100 articulations vs 10. Spitfire increments by capturing room sounds. OT increments by tweakability and raising an overall quality bar. 

But those early innovators are probably not interested in disrupting the business model they created and that pays the bills. Their products are quite mature and established. And that's why the paradigm of _[PC Keyboard - DAW - Sample Player - Sample Library] _remains so entrenched, and is so incredibly involved that you literally have to get a new profession to master it.

I personally think the genuine next leap forward will come from someone new. Maybe it will be in the combined direction of Staffpad and modelling, or maybe it will be something completely different. But ultimately this paradigm above will be broken and people who want to focus on composing will be able to do just that and it will sound great. And people who want to produce will have composing tools.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Mar 24, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I mean, my first "DAW" was Cakewalk in the mid 1990s. I don't think audio tracks were possible yet at that time AFAIR. Compare that with AROF today and maybe the ask doesn't seem all that huge anymore. The question is whether or not it will take another 25 years for the next leap forward to happen.
> 
> It's also true that innovation is not a continuous process, it happens in bursts. For every breakthrough, such as "VST" by Steinberg, "sample player" by NI, "true legato" by VSL you will have companies in the interim that advance incrementally: 7 mic positions vs 1; 100 articulations vs 10. Spitfire increments by capturing room sounds. OT increments by tweakability and raising an overall quality bar.
> 
> ...


maybe the question for instruments and daws is to see who manages to thrive with MIDI 2.0, and which entities are crippled by their own antiquated code... perhaps that's the next burst


----------



## Jiffster (Mar 24, 2021)

Markrs said:


> I use Reaper, and personally I feel most of the innovation comes from the community action scripts, rather than reaper themselves. Similar to how the innovative in Kontakt have come about through using KSP.


Oh I agree, but that community content wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Cockos' "open architecture" approach, not to mention the financial accessibility which is very forward-thinking. In my opinion, it's a unique kind of innovation that no one else is doing and the community is thriving as a result.

The innovation is giving the community the playground to work together in.


----------



## youngpokie (Mar 24, 2021)

chocobitz825 said:


> maybe the question for instruments and daws is to see who manages to thrive with MIDI 2.0,


I was thinking about that too!! Especially in the context of modelling (and maybe Staffpad)....


----------



## Vik (Mar 24, 2021)

This won't be short!
IMO both DAWs and orchestral libraries are still in their puberty. There's brilliant stuff done by a number of companies, but we still don't have eg. a single company which has released a DAW/score editor hybrid which is brilliant at both. We have DAWs like Cubase and Logic, and score editors like Dorico and Sibelius, but in the not too distant future, we'll have DAWs from all main companies that have built in score editors that are ahead of Dorico and Sibelius.

Sibelius development has also slowed down, and neither Cubase or Logic (or any other DAW) has kept developing their score editors the way they could have, meaning that we rely on at least two apps for composing stuff that needs to be presented with notation. Dorico does great stuff, but still misses out on DAW functions. Logic's score editor was making a huge difference through it's brilliant development until some years ago, and I guess the same is true for Cubase. The main shortcoming in this area is.... incompleteness.

...and that's true for orchestral libraries as well. Some string libraries have a brilliant, expressive and believable tone, but lack important features. Others have lots of features but have limitations in other areas: _there's a reason why_ so many keep buying new libraries. Some of them sound great and have some decent features, but suffer from too few round robins, attack options, release options, legato/portamento types, dynamic layers etc. Personally I'd be a lot more happy with a library that could do what I need 5-10 libraries for today – than having to switch between those I have. And AFAIK there's aren't many libraries which keeps expanding the way eg Sable and Mural did for some years.

Many of these limitations may have to do with Kontakt, and we'll probably see huge development from companies like Orchestral Tools, which pioneered some great stuff in the relatively early days of Berlin Strings. In some years from now, if we like what we have (eg BS, SSS, MSS), we should be able to buy add-ons from our fav. libraries. Then we could get some alternative V1s and cellos with the expressive, passionate sound of [insert fav. excessive lib here] with the same the UI we already know.

Spitfire could offer full 'Rach' options (with enough round robins, attack options etc, performance legato/legato performance as the main V1s and cellos have). OT would offer new add-on sets for Berlin Strings, but with a tone close to Con Moto or Vista. CSS would come with add-ons with a brighter sound, and be updated to offer some of the brilliant features we see in Modern Scoring Strings, VSL or Capsule. Afflatus would keep developing, offering more intense vibrato levels and combined presets that offered short notes and their best legatos within the same presets, and a new Scene's d'amour with a lot more than two dynamic layers..... and so on.
IMO all these companies makes brilliant stuff, but if feels kind so 'old fashion', in lack of a better term, to have to switch between them all so much.



> plateau
> _verb
> /ˈplatəʊ/_
> past tense: *plateaued*; past participle: *plateaued*
> ...



Nothing has plateaued _out _for good. I think the the best ones are working on what really matters: details and completeness. I bought my first MIDI gear in 1982/1983, but after almost 40 years my favourite MIDI app still can't let me play a few notes and show simple triads with the correct accidentals. If this is the 'end' of DAW and sample library development for now, I hope reincarnation actually exists!


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 24, 2021)

I like what has been done with Birth of the Trumpet (BOTT). It could be showing the way for the next level of plateau in sampling. This product itself has some issues - the lack of dynamic range and note range and mainly their 'smart' delay issues. Beyond these things, it is wildly technically successful.

Their video shows in some detail how they created their product - revealing several interesting techniques.





With this said, it would be possible to greatly expand on these techniques with a new sample player. Let's say, a new player done by NI/iZotope (or VSL, or anyone for that matter) that had AI, went beyond Kontakt's current sample amount limit and solved the lookahead issue. Since iZotope's engineers are 'way into AI it could be possible.

BOTT's developers wrote elaborate compositions to have the performer musically create all the articulations they were looking for. This helped to stylistically give them what they wanted. They claim there are over 2,000 samples per note. They ran out of sample space in Kontakt. They could not include enough dynamic range or note range with those sample limitations.

Most critically, they needed a 'smart' delay to allow their Kontakt programming to choose the correct sample/articulation.

With more sample space, larger amounts of articulations could be created for more dynamic range and note range possibilities. With lookahead technology, the 'smart' delay would not be needed, and with AI technology the ability to replace the originally played performance and choose which articulation/sample that is correctly desired could be enhanced (_extremely important_).

The concept of writing tailored compositions for the sample performer allows for an accurate depiction of musical style. This technique could more realistically portray a performers' or a group's individual musicality. I see this as being greatly helpful in creating libraries for orchestral or cinematic styles.

Let's hope some developers investigate this.

.

PS - I'd love to buy a library like this.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 24, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> So is the music based on the strength of the libraries or is it the production that's based on the strength (different libraries have different strengths)?


I think the chicken & egg question is resolved if you look at it from the other direction. If sample libraries were so great that they could create convincing classical symphonies (like the mockups people try to make with sample modeling instruments to "prove" how much more flexible they are), and these new libraries could do this without compromising the soundstage/realism, do people here think directors would start asking for more classical, symphonically dense scores? I don't think so. That style of writing still gets asked for but it's very dependent on having the right movie for it first.


----------



## jononotbono (Mar 24, 2021)

NoamL said:


> the only real competitors to Spitfire right now are: CineSamples assuming they continue to have rights to SONY/MGM, and perhaps VSL if Synchron gets _a lot a lot_ more adoption as an A list scoring space.


Orchestral Tools should definitely be in this list. 

Man, I can't wait to see what happens with ARO.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 24, 2021)

jononotbono said:


> Orchestral Tools should definitely be in this list.


Teldex isn't an A list Hollywood filmscoring stage. I'm not trying to flame them... they're just not on the list... the top stages are Abbey Road, AIR, FOX Newman, Eastwood, SONY, and kinda maybe you could add Synchron or Skywalker to that list but they don't have as much history.


----------



## jononotbono (Mar 24, 2021)

NoamL said:


> Teldex isn't an A list Hollywood filmscoring stage. I'm not trying to flame them... they're just not on the list... the top stages are Abbey Road, AIR, FOX Newman, Eastwood, SONY, and kinda maybe you could add Synchron or Skywalker to that list but they don't have as much history.


I understand but to write off one of the biggest sample library Devs just because of the stage they use isn’t John Williams is a little bit off when you are talking about behemoth vs behemoth.

And besides, JXL is scoring huge AAA films now and is a massive proponent of using OT stuff so who knows when Teldex will be regarded as one of these stages you describe.

Disclaimer: Nobody is paying me to say anything. I’m just feeling ill and speaking my mind. Putting the world right one post at a time. 😂


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 24, 2021)

jononotbono said:


> And besides, JXL is scoring huge AAA films now and is a massive proponent of using OT stuff so who knows when Teldex will be regarded as one of these stages you describe.


For Zack Snyder's Justice League that JXL just scored..."Strings and brass were recorded remotely at AIR Studios in London".


----------



## jononotbono (Mar 24, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> For Zack Snyder's Justice League that JXL just scored..."Strings and brass were recorded remotely at AIR Studios in London".


Well there we go then. Better make it 40 years. 😂

I will predict that OT will be releasing just as many massive and successful libraries as the other bygones in the business. Well, I hope so anyway.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 24, 2021)

jononotbono said:


> Well there we go then. Better make it 40 years. 😂
> 
> I will predict that OT will be releasing just as many massive and successful libraries as the other bygones in the business. Well, I hope so anyway.


JXL isn't even using JXL Brass in his mockups (watch his latest studio time). CineBrass, Hollywood Brass, even NI Symphony Series Brass. Wouldn't bet your house on your OT prediction...


----------



## jononotbono (Mar 25, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> JXL isn't even using JXL Brass in his mockups (watch his latest studio time). CineBrass, Hollywood Brass, even NI Symphony Series Brass. Wouldn't bet your house on your OT prediction...


I have watched both studio time videos. There is a perfectly good reason for why he hasn’t used it in the Snyder Cut. It’s got nothing to do with the sound stage that it was recorded on.

Anyway, I think it would probably be wise to separate the want and the need of a professional film composer.

Only because a sample library developer doesn’t use a specific sound stage, it doesn’t mean a film composer doesn’t need their libraries. Once a composer has “mocked up” their music, they likely will “want” to record the score at one of these legendary sound stages and the end result does have that “sound stage” people unknowingly and to a few people, knowingly love. Pro composers use whatever sample libraries they need to use to realise their music.

Joe public doesn’t give a shit whether someone uses a sample library let alone what sound stage a sample library was recorded on. They only care about watching the film and some hopefully love listening to the scores outside of viewing it.

People do know that John Powell uses CSS for his Strings. He has also said how much he loves Berlin Brass. Sorry, but neither are from some kind of “approved” list of sound stages. Tom Holkenborg has repeatedly shown he uses Berlin Strings and CS2 in his mock-ups. Again, neither from an “approved behemoth” sound stage. Massive difference between a composer using any tool they need to be as creative as they can and get their music written as to just sounding like their classic scoring stage they love. Recording their scores in one of these legendary sound stages will give their scores that “sound” (I’ve only worked at Lyndhurst and yes it’s amazing - actually I’ve worked at Galaxy in Mol as well but hey that doesn’t count as it’s not on the “list” despite many pro composers recording there (tax breaks and financially cheaper than London and California). I could go on but I think I’ve made my point... and bolstered my OT prediction splendiferously well! 😂


----------



## ZeroZero (Mar 25, 2021)

Peter Williams said:


> So the work effort required of a composer/musician seems the same to me as ever. To be proficient on an instrument you must practice for years, playing scales, arpeggios, trills, special techniques and nowadays numerous extended techniques. You are not exempt from this if you decide to be a composer, for the midi and audio world demand an amazing chunk of your time and dedication if you wish to be proficient enough to develop your own sound. In addition, we must develop useful musicianship by studying and listening to the best from our past. True, there are some prodigies who find things easy to master, and pop idols who find may take short cuts, letting loops and algorithms determine the bulk of the content, but they must operate within fairly narrow limits. We've all experienced the issue of software pushing the limits of hardware, and we should expect that to continue, sometimes in unexpected ways. We're already getting sample libraries with multiple microphone choices and melodic, alternative sequences to choose on the fly, triggered by relational decision trees. These choice elements will become much more prevalent, in modeled and in sampled content. Lot's of fun for all, but we'll need to be able to use this intelligently and effectively.


When in Austria, I saw Mozart's piano. It really shocked me how bad it was. It would never be acceptable today. not even a beginner would play it. He used ot chop its legs off and cart it around on the back of a horse and cart


----------



## TonalDynamics (Jun 21, 2021)

Peter Williams said:


> So the work effort required of a composer/musician seems the same to me as ever. To be proficient on an instrument you must practice for years, playing scales, arpeggios, trills, special techniques and nowadays numerous extended techniques. You are not exempt from this if you decide to be a composer, for the midi and audio world demand an amazing chunk of your time and dedication if you wish to be proficient enough to develop your own sound.


Or you have to study composition/writing, musicianship (with an instrument), _and_ computer/technical things all at the same time like me and so many others 🙈

I think youngpokie's point was that the digital/technical/computer aspect of composing and producing is an entirely additional skillset that none of the old masters had to contend with, and I totally agree.

It's probably impossible to judge the net effect because there's so many pros and cons of "their" way vs. "our" way, but I do feel like overall we are probably a lot less productive in terms of _quantity_ of what we produce as a result.

The caveat is that while we likely produce a lot less output of material quantity wise compared to the old ones, we hopefully are making up for that with a general increase in quality, having a virtually unlimited resource of creative tools available they could never have dreamed of.

However, my suspicion is that we would all probably be 'happier' and more productive composers if we had less technical issues to solve, and more time for simply making music.

This is why when I'm writing, I pretty much just use whatever piano I'm in the mood for that day and cut loose, worrying about the orchestration later. (A technique also favored by Raman Djawadi... AND Mozart and John Williams!)

^^ That's one area where we have a NET advantage over all the old legends, imagine if they had a LIBRARY of pianos they could choose from when they began their writing, they wouldn't know what to think... we're very spoiled in this regard 👍👍


----------



## TonalDynamics (Jun 21, 2021)

As for OP's original question,

I feel that libraries like JBV and most of Orchestral Tool's libs. prove that we have _not_ peaked in terms of sample library quality.

Because the thing is, even though lots of libraries have a nice sound and are well-recorded, it's the scripting and programming side of things that are massive shortcomings and prevent those samples from being used in the most musical or intuitive way, and it's this area where those libraries mentioned above in particular are head and shoulders above the rest of the field IMO.


----------



## GNP (Jun 21, 2021)

It's easy to just sit back and watch the latest innovations parade themselves in front of us, and we just sip our martinis and go, "nah."

Meanwhile, I seem to be able to satisfy client after client, with the most basics of sample libraries, and not the "most innovative". Because it's about what they specifically need for a project, and not about "how innovative a sample library is". (for example, some clients just want a great, simple love theme. they do not care about how "innovative" orchestral sampling has gone.)

I am pretty confident that I (and many others) will be able to satisfy more clients in my/our *lifetime.*


----------



## Casiquire (Jun 22, 2021)

I don't think they've plateaued in the sense that there are still extraordinary achievements being made, particularly in the neighborhood of features like lookahead, modeling, and sampling performances rather than held notes, etc. But i do think a threshold for realism was achieved around the time of VSL's VI releases, Hollywood Strings, LASS, Cinebrass, etc, where you could use samples exposed in your finished product and the audience wouldn't question it anymore if it was done well.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jun 22, 2021)

In terms of traditional sample libraries as we know them, it's sometimes hard for me to imagine what else could still be done (better) than what we already have. I do wish one could combine the strenghts of certain libraries (e.g. roomtone X + programming Y) and the outcome, to me, would be pretty much perfect - the parts already exist, many since years, unbeaten.


----------



## Soundbed (Jun 22, 2021)

I don’t think we’ve plateaued with sample libraries. I imagine playing with multiple round robin recorded attacks of various types and dynamic levels, multiple progressive vibrato recordings of sustains at various dynamic levels, multiple transition types with round robins and dynamics, multiple release samples. No phasing or crossfade issues. Several options for number of recorded players. Style and genre controls. Great tone and performance in the recordings that isn’t destroyed by phase alignment. Tuning and intonation systems that are context sensitive. 

DAWs might be closer to a plateau, but for VI orchestral mock-ups the articulation switching would need to continue to evolve to facilitate control over the types of attacks, transitions and sustains mentioned above. Plus a way to help multiple tracks work out intonation together as an ensemble perhaps. Plus help mix and pseudo-master a bit more. Plus easier ways to pull parts from other projects into the latest projects.

Some machine learning (AI) protocol might help translate controller data so that the articulations get translated into the DAWs and interpreted by the libraries. So that simple composer “performances” can get translated into a genre specific musician Performance. 

Synths have almost certainly plateaued.

Physical modeling that others have mentioned wasn’t really part of the initial question (haha).


----------



## janila (Jun 22, 2021)

To me two of the best sounding libraries of all times are Symphobia 1 which I got in 2013 and Symphobia 2 which I got in the current sale. In between the best libraries I've acquired are from Performance Samples that are made with very old and simple sampling techniques. Some day some company will make a technological advancement that will change the game, but to me it seems that we are just starting to get a glimpse of what can be done with the current technologies. Most companies have spent years on doing one-size-fits-for-all libraries that don't include two samples that actually sound natural when connected, but mic positions and velocity layers mean nothing if the samples are lifeless. Honorable mention in my library acquisitions go to Sonokinetic, but their phrase libraries mainly scale the same problem to a larger scale. The individual notes connect but the phrases don't, which can be a great advancement in some contexts. Certainly we need the bread-and-butter libraries of which I have many, but my point is that more music can be captured with the current technologies if more companies start to concentrate on that.


----------



## Kent (Jun 22, 2021)

Markrs said:


> There is no doubt there have be good iterative improvements, but lots of libraries out there are often 10+ years old, but loads of people still use them. Have we in truth in reached a plateau where the costs of libraries are getting cheaper but there isn't much innovation going on?
> 
> I think this might be the same situation with, DAWs, midi controllers and synths. The only thing that seems to massively improve is the reduction in purchase price (maybe not MSRP, but more the regular sale price), which is probably in part explained but increasing number of users rather than just down to a reduction in costs.


I mean, we're either iterating or we've plateaued. I'm not sure how you can have both.


----------



## penfever (Jun 22, 2021)

I vote no.

Ongoing innovation (a few recent examples) ...

Synths: Knif Audio Knifonium
DAWs: Bitwig 4, VCV Rack
Sample Libraries: Birth of the Trumpet, Secco Strings


----------



## doctoremmet (Jun 22, 2021)

penfever said:


> I vote no.
> 
> Ongoing innovation (a few recent examples) ...
> 
> ...


Interesting comment and one that has provoked my thought process - I thank you for that.

Care to expand on Secco Strings? It’s the only one I didn’t get (in multiple meanings of that word).


----------



## TonalDynamics (Jun 22, 2021)

kmaster said:


> I mean, we're either iterating or we've plateaued. I'm not sure how you can have both.



That's why the answer to this question is obfuscated, we're asking "have we peaked yet" as if there's actually a consistent, measurable quality of standards out there that we can measure each library or developer by.

I think we may be subconsciously comparing the sample lib. development profession to other fields which are more or less _linear_ in their development progress - things like aerospace, auto manufacturing, or computer chip design - the stuff 'everyone' uses and essentially have the brunt of R&D and the collective means of production of the whole world being thrown at it to ensure a mean level of quality.

On the other hand, our craft is a very niche area, far from the "mainstream" of research and manufacturing (which is also why we pay a heavy premium for most libraries, there isn't much competition and the only way developers can pay for these projects is to jack up the price since they have no volume)

I would argue that sample lib. development is a _non-linear_ process, with progress coming in episodic fits and starts as opposed to following any sort of standard of quality; one product will release with amazing room sounds, mic options, and legato, but fall short with dynamic crossfades and timbre, another will have amazing dynamic layers and overall timbre and with enough articulations, but have plastic sounding legato transitions worse than a product that's 8 years old.


It's been four years since JBV came out, and I still haven't seen any new libraries match it in terms of scripting, dynamics crossfade, legato transitions, articulation consistency, and overall ease of use.

There's just no real 'standard' of quality (outside of Orchestral Tools IMO) to which any of the attributes I listed above are held or developed - it's a bit of a mess, really, and our task of navigating the minefield of the flaws found within each new release is a tedious one... which is all the more reason I'm glad a forum like this exists 👍

So again my answer would be a resounding 'no', we definitely haven't plateaued


----------



## Markrs (Jun 22, 2021)

kmaster said:


> I mean, we're either iterating or we've plateaued. I'm not sure how you can have both.


I would disagree, plateau isn’t flat but very little movement, which would include incremental change. So you can have both.

not saying my view is right, but more how I felt owning modern sample libraries like BBC SO Pro compared to 10 year old libraries like Hollywood Orchestra


----------



## lastmessiah (Jun 22, 2021)

DAWs certainly haven’t. The only ones that are pushing forward are Bitwig and Tracktion Waveform. The big ones are still in that legacy “digital tape recorder” paradigm.


----------



## TonalDynamics (Jun 22, 2021)

lastmessiah said:


> DAWs certainly haven’t. The only ones that are pushing forward are Bitwig and Tracktion Waveform. The big ones are still in that legacy “digital tape recorder” paradigm.


I would say Studio One has also been pushing forward considerably in the last couple years.


----------



## penfever (Jun 25, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> Interesting comment and one that has provoked my thought process - I thank you for that.
> 
> Care to expand on Secco Strings? It’s the only one I didn’t get (in multiple meanings of that word).


Sure! 

Two really innovative features of Secco Strings in my book --

1. xy pad controlling 'placement' of the players ... with modulation. That means you can have your 'string section' moving, spinning, cycling around, in time with, say, an LFO or a reverb effect.

2. User loaded samples ... you can use this engine with any sample Kontakt is capable of loading, not just strings. So you can blend and modulate your strings with, say, Kaivo modeled string samples, or AAS if that's your jam.


----------



## doctoremmet (Jun 25, 2021)

penfever said:


> Sure!
> 
> Two really innovative features of Secco Strings in my book --
> 
> ...


Thanks! That is indeed awesome. Off to watch some videos!


----------



## NekujaK (Jun 25, 2021)

I'm waiting for the day when I can interact with VIs like I would a session musician. For example, I would love to convey any of the following performance suggestions thru a simple gesture in my DAW:

"Play with more intensity/feeling/emotion, etc..."
"Play more tenderly/tentatively"
"Stick to the notes as written!"
"Feel free to embelish"
"Take a solo during the next 8 bars"
"Play with a more relaxed feel"
"Just comp during verses and play arpeggios during the chorus"
etc...

We've started to scratch the surface in some of these areas with tools like Scaler, EZkeys, EZbass, etc... but each of these tools have their own way of doing things that still involve a fair amount of fiddling. I would love to communicate my musical intentions in a unified way, presumably thru my DAW, to various instrument groups regardless of developer and without fiddling with velocities, quantizing, etc.

Basically, I want to forget that I'm using sampled instrument libraries, and instead feel like I'm interacting with live musicians. Is that too much to ask for? In my lifetime, probably...


----------

