# Thomas Newman Detuned Mandolin?



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 8, 2010)

Can anyone tell me where I can find a workable version of this American Beauty staple? Is something similar included in any commercially available lib?

In a pinch, under a tight deadline.

Any leads appreciated. I have a ton of libs, but haven't found something usable. No time to hire a player. I also don't have a Mandolin here in the studio.

Many thanks.


B


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 8, 2010)

Anyone?

27 sets of Eyeballs, no one has a suggestion?

The Thammer Zitherette is a thought...but any other ideas?


----------



## midphase (Feb 8, 2010)

Look into Hans Zimmer Guitars 2, you might be able to use the Charango or Cavaquiño to get that sound.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 8, 2010)

"Look into Hans Zimmer Guitars 2, you might be able to use the Charango or Cavaquiño to get that sound."

Thanks much, Kays - we think alike. That is what I have in there now.

Much appreciate the speedy help! Thank you!


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 8, 2010)

BTW, that content has been nicely reprogrammed and bundled into Omnisphere. Some nice adjustments to it as well. FWIW....


----------



## Camus (Feb 8, 2010)

Lyrical Distortion had a Mandolin Lib on the Friday extravaganza. Have a look if it is still available.
For this kind of stuff I sometimes use the Boldersounds Hammered Dulcimer. There is a kind of Tremolando Attack available, that really does a good Job.
American Zither from Wavelore is pretty cool, too (very pristine) - besides Zitherette.
And there was an announcement of a charango vsti somewhere here in the forum last year.
Pettinhouse is having a little guitar (a buyable and a freebie one). Might be an option.
Also there is a bouzuki VSTi / Kontaktplayer ( a little bit expensive) but very well done. But the Bouzuki sounds more like an "arabic type of guitar". Different from Mandolin but really cool. Nice articulations!
But maybe for rhythmical chords you just load real guitar 2-Nylon and set the chord mode to the highest invertion. Worked well for me in a mix.

Hope that helps

Camus


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 8, 2010)

Merçi Monsieur Camus!

An embarrassment of riches.


----------



## artsoundz (Feb 9, 2010)

Definitely check out The LIttle guitar from Pettinhouse. I love that instrument. Also-
http://www.cinematique-instruments.com/

lots of cool stuff here. Lovely instruments sampled very well. Reminds me a lot of T-hammer.


----------



## A/V4U (Feb 9, 2010)

Did you try Chris Hein Guitars. It has Mandolin included


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

Brobdingnagian @ Mon Feb 08 said:


> Can anyone tell me where I can find a workable version of this American Beauty staple? Is something similar included in any commercially available lib?
> 
> In a pinch, under a tight deadline.
> 
> ...



I'd love to have that. I've been asking for that kind of thing for ages, but it requires really good strumming. I'f you notice, which I'm sure you have, Newman uses a lot of strummed ethnic guitar rhythms. 

I have Zimmer Guitars 1+2 and they are good but cant really do much and are quite limited. Would be great if some of the really good guitar sample library producers started making really good ethnic guitars/stringed instruments. I thought Tonehammer would do it, but I'm not so sure now since they didn't provide any multisamples for their electric guitar cd.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 9, 2010)

The tonehammer guitar library is labeled as Volume 1. With their Tabla library, volume one is loops and volume two is samples, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are planning the same thing for guitar.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 9, 2010)

The reason why the string instruments work sounds so cool in TN stuff is that it is played live by an excellent musician.
You can have all the multi-sampled instruments in the world, you're not gonna get close.
The only solution would be recording phrases and if I were gonna do it, I'd offer a lib that includes a ton of phrases/fxs from a whole bunch of different string instruments: mandolin, banjo, oud, bouzouki, ukulele...etc, strummed, bowed, slapped...

Troels?


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> The tonehammer guitar library is labeled as Volume 1. With their Tabla library, volume one is loops and volume two is samples, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are planning the same thing for guitar.



I hope so, but based on their comments in the thread of their guitar riff library Troels said they tried multi sampling it and it sounded rubbish which makes me think they aren't going to unless they change their minds.


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> The reason why the string instruments work sounds so cool in TN stuff is that it is played live by an excellent musician.
> You can have all the multi-sampled instruments in the world, you're not gonna get close.
> The only solution would be recording phrases and if I were gonna do it, I'd offer a lib that includes a ton of phrases/fxs from a whole bunch of different string instruments: mandolin, banjo, oud, bouzouki, ukulele...etc, strummed, bowed, slapped...
> 
> Troels?



That's just not true though, if you sample enough round robins in a certain way it will sound quite close, or at least, damn good.

You see many times I've used Zimmer guitars to try and play that stuff and it would have sounded fine if it wasn't for the fact that there's hardly any dynamic layers and no round robins.


----------



## dinerdog (Feb 9, 2010)

Speaking of Thomas Newman and Troels:

Troels, did you ever get to ask Steve Tavaglione about a artist lib of his ambiences?


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 9, 2010)

dinerdog @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> Speaking of Thomas Newman and Troels:
> 
> Troels, did you ever get to ask Steve Tavaglione about a artist lib of his ambiences?



Yes, I'll even hijack/tanget my own thread with that query....yes, Troels. have you asked him?!?

Thanks for all of the help, gents with my original frage as well. Much appreciated.

B


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

And if he does make one, please tell him to make stuff that sounds like Newman please


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 9, 2010)

Ed @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Feb 09 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason why the string instruments work sounds so cool in TN stuff is that it is played live by an excellent musician.
> ...



I guess we're not talking about the same thing Ed... :roll: 

Many of the strings fxs n TN music are not doable using a conventional lib. Period


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> I guess we're not talking about the same thing Ed... :roll:
> 
> Many of the strings fxs n TN music are not doable using a conventional lib. Period



Not everything is doable of course, but a lot of things are.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 9, 2010)

What I am refering to are not the melodic lines or arpeggios, but the bowed and strummed stuff. You have to record phrases to cover those...
There must be a reason why TN has been using this team of players for years, aside from the advantage of getting input from people that are fluent on their instrument(s).
I'm sure that he could get a tailored lib to cover his needs if it was that easy...


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 9, 2010)

Patrick, could you give an example of a specific part of a track?


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> What I am refering to are not the melodic lines or arpeggios, but the bowed and strummed stuff. You have to record phrases to cover those...
> There must be a reason why TN has been using this team of players for years, aside from the advantage of getting input from people that are fluent on their instrument(s).
> *I'm sure that he could get a tailored lib to cover his needs if it was that easy...*



Because with live players he can get them to play whatever he wants?

Anyhoo, check out this track. At about 37 seconds you can hear some nice stringed rhythems happening. Now, if Pettinhouse can record really nice strums for acoustic guitar where you just play it on the keyboard without any keyswitches I'm pretty sure you can just do that for this instryment as well. Also, if you record it quite loose and made sure you record a good amount of dynamics and LOTS of roundrobins why couldn't you get close? Well, it may not sound exactly the same, but since no one has ever done that before with that instrument we can't say that can't work. But if we know it works with a similar instrument it should work with this one. 

This kind of thing might be more difficult. At about 44 seconds you can hear some very out of tune strumming rhythms he used a lot in American Beauty which I guess is what people are talking about. However, I think you could get quite close but you'd have to try some experiments with the previous technique until you got close to that sound. 

Incidental Newman still loves using Prosonus string Staccs and Pizz for some reason.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 9, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> Patrick, could you give an example of a specific part of a track?




It's all over the score of Lemoney Snicket, but when I have a minute (that may take a while  I'll post a couple of short things.
In the meantime, check out the featurette on TN in Wall E.
You'll see the guitar player using a bow to create ambiences for TN...


----------



## tripit (Feb 9, 2010)

It's pretty hard to do a really convincing TN type thing with samples. I have the American Zither, HZ guitar, CH Guitar and Pettinhouse. You can do some great things with those, but not everything. I picked up a real Charango for $80 and it was worth every penny. There are lots of things you can do on a real one that you could never do with samples.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 9, 2010)

tripit @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> It's pretty hard to do a really convincing TN type thing with samples. I have the American Zither, HZ guitar, CH Guitar and Pettinhouse. You can do some great things with those, but not everything. I picked up a real Charango for $80 and it was worth every penny. There are lots of things you can do on a real one that you could never do with samples.



+1. I play guitar. If you do, I suggest you pick up a cheap mandolin and start hacking away. I played it on a track I sold the second day. I'll never be Chris Thile, but I can lay down strumming and simple lines.


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

But honestly, we may not have the samples right now to do it but someone explain to me why in theory it can't get very close.


----------



## midphase (Feb 9, 2010)

"tripit @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:29 pm wrote:
It's pretty hard to do a really convincing TN type thing with samples. I have the American Zither, HZ guitar, CH Guitar and Pettinhouse. You can do some great things with those, but not everything. I picked up a real Charango for $80 and it was worth every penny. There are lots of things you can do on a real one that you could never do with samples."

+2


----------



## midphase (Feb 9, 2010)

"But honestly, we may not have the samples right now to do it but someone explain to me why in theory it can't get very close."

I dunno man...I mean this kinda relates to the whole PP discussion...it's all about the imperfections and little noises and misc crap that generally gets edited out in favor of a clean sample library.


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

midphase @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> I dunno man...I mean this kinda relates to the whole PP discussion...it's all about the imperfections and little noises and misc crap that generally gets edited out in favor of a clean sample library.



I don't see why it matters too much here, just record it more loosely with lots of dynamics and round robins. 

Even Hollywood Strings said they implemented some of TJ's ideas in regards runs by recording some out of tune so that runs felt more natural. I guess you could do that here.

Regardless, the point I'm making if we already have this stuff for normal guitars like strumming, many round robins and so on so it seems completely straight forward to me to apply the same logic to this. Its not like you need to do legato or anything.

I don't see what this has to do with PP, really.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 9, 2010)

The detuned thing in Meet Maguire sounds like the character of the sound comes more from the detuning than from any special playing technique. Take mandolin and either mult it with a detuned layer, or double it detuned with something similar like guitar, zither, koto. If you want something even more randomly tuned than that, you could apply two different tuning scales to the two layers or map the tuning parameter of one or both to something like velocity (or an entirely separate controller).

You might not get quite the same sound, but it seems like it could achieve a similar feel.

I'll have to listen to more of his stuff, I assume there are string techniques that go beyond that particular example.


----------



## midphase (Feb 9, 2010)

"I don't see why it matters too much here, just record it more loosely with lots of dynamics and round robins. "

Ed, I don't know what you do or who you are (link to your website perhaps?), but if you're a "MIDI-only" type of composer, then the argument is wasted. The type of performance variations and organic quality that a real player brings to a session (especially when talking about stringed instruments) is simply difficult with the current technology to emulate. I have yet to hear a non-phrases guitar library that truòO   ÃÁ­O   ÃÁ®O   ÃÁ¯O   ÃÁ°O   ÃÁ±O   ÃÁ²O   ÃÁ³O   ÃÁ´O   ÃÁµO   ÃÁ¶O   ÃÁ·O   ÃÁ¸O   ÃÁ¹O   ÃÁºO   ÃÁ»O   ÃÁ¼O   ÃÁ½O   ÃÁ¾O   ÃÁ¿O   ÃÁÀO


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 9, 2010)

I can't say it 100%, but I really like Bolder Sounds stuff. They sample a lot of rare instruments.

As far as a purposely detuned mandolin I'm not sure.

Bolder's Hammer Dulcimer is totally worth it though.

http://www.boldersounds.com


----------



## stonzthro (Feb 9, 2010)

Mandolin out of tune? Probably harder to find one IN tune! :?


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

midphase @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> I have yet to hear a non-phrases guitar library that truly compares to actually asking your buddy to come down and play on your track..



Isn't this a strawman? 

What about VSL? Getting a real violinist or flute player in is also not going to compare to sample libraries. Why bother with Hollywood Strings at all!

To me I am surprised so many of you are so short-sighted. Its like as if VSL never existed with their legato concept, or Broadway Big Band, Tonehammer or anything like that and me saying that I think they could actually make flute samples sound more realistic and you telling me you only do that with a live player for the same reasons you just gave, if not more! 

The difference here?

This doesn't even need any performance tools we don't already have. My first example is much easier than the second. We already have a strumming guitar sample library,so why not record an ethnicy stringed instrument in the same way with an effort to make the repetitions quite "loose" . I see absolutely no reason why this cannot be done. 

The second example might take some more work in concept and planning, but I still think its more than possible.

We have sample libraries right now that sound fine, its just NONE of them are sampled deep enough to do this kind of thing.

Sure, it will still tie you down to a certain sound and provide less choices compared with a live player, but that goes for* ALL SAMPLE LIBRARIES EVER*.


----------



## midphase (Feb 9, 2010)

" why not record an ethnicy stringed instrument in the same way with an effort to make the repetitions quite "loose" . I see absolutely no reason why this cannot be done."


Dude...sure...why not? But the bottom line is that it ain't out there yet! I mean at some point you get to sample the performance in larger chunks that you end up with a phrase library which IMHO is the next best thing.

The second point is that maybe the market isn't there for someone to go through the trouble? I dunno. Maybe Gipsy contains some of that stuff? Silk? Dammit...where's Nick when you need him?


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

midphase @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> Dude...sure...why not? But the bottom line is that it ain't out there yet!



My point exactly. My point is its possible to do it, everyone else is saying it can't be done and you'd have to get a live player.



> I mean at some point you get to sample the performance in larger chunks that you end up with a phrase library which IMHO is the next best thing.



Not with strumming guitar notes, we are not talking about drum loops here. You not only have rhythm you also have *notes *that can't be changed. (And no, Melodyne is not an option.) If you had recorded phrases you'd run out of use for them pretty quickly.

Before Pettinhouse and all the other good guitar multisamples you'd probably be telling me you couldn't get that sound either unless you recorded phrases.



> The second point is that maybe the market isn't there for someone to go through the trouble? I dunno. Maybe Gipsy contains some of that stuff? Silk? Dammit...where's Nick when you need him?



Of course the market is there, theres loads of sample cds people have spent a lot of time on that are rather niech. 

Instruments in RA and Gypsy are of only limited value if they are not sampled deep enough. If you provide me with a well recorded sound and even give me 3 dynamic layers and 3 round robins it will still not be able to do that kind of rhythm stuff that we are talking about since very quickly it will sound repetitious. Solution? More round robins for a start.


----------



## midphase (Feb 9, 2010)

"everyone else is saying it can't be done and you'd have to get a live player. "

Well, as it is right now, they're right. However if you or someone else decide to create that missing library I'm all ears (and credit cards).


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

midphase @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> "everyone else is saying it can't be done and you'd have to get a live player. "
> 
> Well, as it is right now, they're right. However if you or someone else decide to create that missing library I'm all ears (and credit cards).



So its not possible to be sampled... because no one has done it yet???

Before Tonehammer sampled a bazillion round robins, was it not still POSSIBLE to do that before then or do sample library producers change the laws of the universe each time they develop a new technique?

And I know that's not what you meant, but then you knew that's not what I meant either.


----------



## mf (Feb 9, 2010)

Ed, I think you are talking about the future, and you are probably right, what you say is doable. But the OP's concern is about a very pressing present. I too think that the real thing is the solution in his situation.


----------



## Ed (Feb 9, 2010)

mf @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> Ed, I think you are talking about the future. The OP's concern is about a very pressing present. I too think that the real thing is the solution in his situation.



Oh sure, my point from the beginning was that this is something that should be and could be sampled.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 9, 2010)

Ed @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> Because with live players he can get them to play whatever he wants?



Not so. I am surprised that you haven't caught TN interviews, with him mentioning that he uses the guys from his team for the creativity and input that they bring to the table.



Ed @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> "Anyhoo, check out this track. At about 37 seconds you can hear some nice stringed rhythems happening. Now, if Pettinhouse can record really nice strums for acoustic guitar where you just play it on the keyboard without any keyswitches I'm pretty sure you can just do that for this instryment as well. Also, if you record it quite loose and made sure you record a good amount of dynamics and LOTS of roundrobins why couldn't you get close? Well, it may not sound exactly the same, but since no one has ever done that before with that instrument we can't say that can't work. But if we know it works with a similar instrument it should work with this one."



Do you actually hear all the variations in dynamic and timbre while he is playing?
This is called life, and a strumming library will take you only so far until you get really bored with the whole thing.
There is a lot more to strumming than producing a 4,5,6,12 notes chords.
You obviously are not a guitar player, or else you'd be playing all of those live guitars in our track in order to emulate TN
You wanna know something?
I bet you that you wouldn't dig TN so much if samples were all that he had been using for his soundtracks.

Funny that for someone that digs TN so much you seem to have missed the fact that the man has based a large part of his sound on the interactions of LIVE musicians in a recording studio.



Ed @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> Incidental Newman still loves using Prosonus string Staccs and Pizz for some reason"



Cool. those pizz are nice


----------



## mf (Feb 9, 2010)

Folmann @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> I don't believe you can really program an instrument you cannot play yourself.


Administrator please make this a big sticky title.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 9, 2010)

Troels, good point about the need to understand the instrument in order to emulate it.

And certainly, TH has created a number of great libraries that are playable, sound great out of the box and have life to them...

To be honest, this example leaves me undecided.
There is a certain lack of definition in the strummed guitar part that would make me think that the player is not very tight and crisp.
This is a work in progress, I'm sure that you'll get it closer, but again, there is a difference between creating a part that will get the job done for most commercial applications and creating a killer track that lives up to the best human performance.

For one, I believe that the problem with guitars lies in the controller itself.
You can't strum a MIDI guitar without triggering a ton of unwanted harmonics.
After all, one of the great points about strumming is the ability to mute the strings at will in the left hand by letting go of the pressure of the fingers on the fretboard, thus creating cool percussive sounds, mixed in with pitches when re-applying the left hand pressure.
MIDI controllers do not quite understand this and believe that we actually mean to sound a pitch when we only wanted to get the percussive sound, and libraries have never sampled all of the possible muted notes that we can get out of the instrument...
The day someone creates a controller that solves this problem, along with libraries that respond to all the nuances of the instrument, we'll have made a tremendous leap.
But I don't believe a keyboard player will ever be able to get past a certain level of imitation...


----------



## midphase (Feb 9, 2010)

+1 on what Patrick just said.

If you play a stringed instrument, you come to understand why it's so incredibly difficult to translate into samples to be played on a keyboard.


----------



## midphase (Feb 9, 2010)

BTW...I find that distorted guitar is a hell of a lot easier to emulate than anything acoustic. I mean I have gotten convincing distorted guitar sounds by running a synth through an amp simulator.


----------



## artsoundz (Feb 9, 2010)

Folmann @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> Its nice to see a reasonably mature discussion like this on the forum - where everybody is acknowledging the flaws in their points. The truth of the matter is that things can be done, but we may not have the technology and understanding yet. Stringed instruments - whether its symphonic strings or instruments in the traditional guitar family are all incredibly difficult to sample - and each instrument literally has its own characteristics. Single notes and chords/strumming require different sampling techniques too.
> 
> The challenge is that you can do 100.000 Ukelele samples, but at the end of the day you have so many articulations and so much stuff to keep track off - you might as well just play one instead. In addition I don't believe you can really program an instrument you cannot play yourself. I think its a common mistake that people think they can play it - cause there is a virtual representation of the instrument. You might be able make a reasonable sound-a-like, but its never gonna sound like somebody that has the technical understanding of how the instrument functions and the musical understanding to express it.
> 
> ...



sweet music,Troels. what is doing the strumming?


----------



## artsoundz (Feb 10, 2010)

weii, you're a genius bla bla bla,,,sneeze,,,,bla


----------



## Synesthesia (Feb 10, 2010)

Wow, Troels that is beautiful! Really lovely sound!

Thats one sale for sure!

Cheers,

Paul :D


----------



## Markus S (Feb 10, 2010)

A bit off topic, but is there any convincing solution to the strumming problem on the market (be it guitar or whatever)?


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Markus S @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> A bit off topic, but is there any convincing solution to the strumming problem on the market (be it guitar or whatever)?





According to some people in this thread Pettinhouse need not have bothered and this library is clearly useless.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 10, 2010)

Indigunus has a very nice strumming solution too if i remember correctly. And it's really cheap.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Fernando Warez @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Indigunus has a very nice strumming solution too if i remember correctly. And it's really cheap.



Sadly very VERY VERY VERY limited. But hats of to him for attempting strumming though, just no release triggers, guitar "noises", or round robins. Would have been more usefull if it provided just a little more detail, as it gets difficult to use very quickly.

Pettinhouse to me has the best stuff for guitars outside that Japanese developer that made that really expensive electric guitar.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Folmann @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Thanks Art. If you listen closely you will hear sympathetic resonance in the strumming, which is from a baby sitar. I am kinda embarrassed by this example, since its very early testing and I only used one chord with very loose type of strumming, so please bare with me, since its not really meant for public consumption at this point blablabla.



I like the example, it shows potential. But I presume since you talk of only playing one chord, that you can't create your own chords like you can with Pettinhouse?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 10, 2010)

> Pettinhouse to me has the best stuff for guitars outside that Japanese developer that made that really expensive electric guitar.



I have Prominy, and honestly I can't use it that well. Not like the videos anyway. The multis and such don't seem to work as well, but I haven't tried it in K4 yet (had 2 before)

EDIT: The trash library is decent. Wonder how that will sound in comparison to SHREDDAGE.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> > Pettinhouse to me has the best stuff for guitars outside that Japanese developer that made that really expensive electric guitar.
> 
> 
> 
> I have Prominy, and honestly I can't use it that well.



Yea I was wondering how easy it was to use in practice. I only mentioned it as it seems to be at least possible to get really good results from it. Pettinhouse however is more to the point as that's acoustic guitar strumming.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 10, 2010)

The Pettinhouse thing sounds nice for guitar strumming. But I'd be curious how people would attempt the specific TN sound in this thread. Obviously, a number of people don't think it's possible to do 100% òº   ÃÙ<º   ÃÙ=º   ÃÙ>º   ÃÙ?º   ÃÙ@º   ÃÙAº   ÃÙB


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> The Pettinhouse thing sounds nice for guitar strumming. But I'd be curious how people would attempt the specific TN sound in this thread.



I would say do it how Pettinhouse did it, we already know that obviously works. So just record it more loosely and record a bazillion round robins. I don't see why its THAT hard, its not like you need to record legato which is very fiddly in recording and editing and programming. It just requires a little experimentation tests I would have thought to make sure you are getting it loose enough to sound good. 

Like I said even some Hans Zimmer Guitars have a nice sound that would be great for some of this stuff it was sampled more deeply even just providing lots of roundrobins TH style would make it a LOT more usable



> Obviously, a number of people don't think it's possible to do 100% with available samples, but what would your best approximation be?



The people who claimed it wasn't possible claimed it wasn't possible because with a live player you can do so much more, which means VSL need not have bothered to dare suggest you can produce a more realistic legato articulation or Pettinhouse a more realistic strumming sound. 

Obviously it won't sound 100% the same, but through trying to get very close we can still end up with a similar and likely cool sound.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 10, 2010)

Folmann @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Thanks Art. If you listen closely you will hear sympathetic resonance in the strumming, which is from a baby sitar. I am kinda embarrassed by this example, since its very early testing and I only used one chord with very loose type of strumming, so please bare with me, since its not really meant for public consumption at this point blablabla.



Troels, no need to be embarassed, you're trying to push the envelope!
All the power to you and TH!


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 10, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Not so. I am surprised that you haven't caught TN interviews, with him mentioning that he uses the guys from his team for the creativity and input that they bring to the table"
> ...




Talking about shortsightedness! :roll: 

You are putting statements in my mouth that I have never made.
It may strenghten your argument, but dude, read again...
Here is what I wrote a few posts ago:
"there is a difference between creating a part that will get the job done for most commercial applications and creating a killer track that lives up to the best human performance"

Get it?

I never spoke against samples, I just stated the obvious.
So when people ask how to get that TN sound, forgive me for stating that samples will only take you so far.
You may be satisfied with your approximations, but personally, I am not satisfy by static copies. There is a way to infuse life into your tracks, and that's by adding live musicians to your MIDI mockups.
I use samples everyday and for most of the commercial work that I do, it is fine.
Samples allow me to be self sufficiant and to approximate a whole bunch of styles.
But when I sit and attempts to write for myself, or if the project's budget allows for more, I will definitely consider adding live players. It will make the music that much stronger and will strenghten my reel.
Plus I will get more satisfaction out of the experience...

You say that you don't have access to musicians: I guess you must be living in the woods somewhere, or maybe you've never tried to get those relationships going?
It may be time for you to get out of the house.
There are so many creative ways to get musicians involved, even when you're broke.
For one, you can offer to produce some tracks free of charge in exchange for some performances of your tunes.

But maybe you're happy doing your 100% certified sample-based tunes, and that's cool too. 
You'll just never will get the essence of what's in TN music... :wink: 
...and to be honest, it may be that what we hear in his music is coming from different perspectives and that we both react to different things that are present in his work.
As far as I'm concerned, I really enjoy those moments when the team is interacting and layering those exciting performances...
It isn't all that is present in there, but it's the icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 10, 2010)

> There is a way to infuse life into your tracks, and that's by adding live musicians to your MIDI mockups.



Knut Haugen did this with VSL on the Age of Conan soundtrack. Had a live violinist double the parts with VSL. Big difference.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 10, 2010)

Can I get a link to what this thread is actually about? An audio example.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 10, 2010)

and since we're still on the subject of the complexity of string instruments (guitar family) let's not forget about the right hand!
Not only can you strum with the flesh of the finger, with the nail, with a pick that can be made of nylon, plastic, wood, stone, hoove...etc but the thickness of the pick has also a great influence on the sound.
Not to mention the angle at which you attack the strings or the fact that the way and speed at which you brush over the strings creates all sorts of resonances...
Oh, and also where your fingers rest in relationship to the frets on the left hand also have an incidence on the sound... >8o 

Compare this with the mechanics involved in creating a pitch at the piano and you'll quickly realize that the process is infinitely more involved with a guitar.
Any time you add human body parts, joints...etc, to actually create a sound, you increase drastically the possibilities for variations and nuances in the creation of that sound.
Compare this series of factors to the piano or even to a wind instrument to some extent. Pressing a key on a saxophone is a much simpler process. What makes the creation of a pitch very complex in a wing instrument is the air column and its interaction with the sound. But from the stand point of triggering the key, it is a much simpler process...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Talking about shortsightedness! :roll:
> ...



Give it a rest will you?

Best of luck with your TN ersatz


----------



## midphase (Feb 10, 2010)

"Can I get a link to what this thread is actually about? An audio example."

+1.

This thread kinda reminds me of the one about the VSL Silent Stage....hmmmmm.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Sorry, I meant how would people take their best shot at sequencing this sound, not how would people go about creating a sample library that sounded like this. Sorry I wasn't clear.
> 
> Sorry, again I'm talking about the idea that it's not completely possible with available samples, not that it's impossible to create a sample library that could do this sort of thing.



Well I agree its far from possible with available samples, in fact I'd say its impossible. You might be able to get kinda similar sound with some hammered string instruments (we have several nice libraries now) maybe layering some ethnic string plucks over it. It may even sound pretty cool but quite different to this I would think.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Can I get a link to what this thread is actually about? An audio example.





I'm talking about *stuff like this* which could be done rather straight forwardly it seems if sampled correctly. Skip to 34 seconds. Listen carefully. It sounds just like Pettinghouse's strumming, just make it a bit more loose, record it in a nice way (_with lots of air lol_) and tada... you have a very similar sound. 

But apparently that idea is way too controversial for some people.

Midphase compared this to the VSL silent stage thread, yes it reminds me of that as well. A bunch of people all saying I'm wrong even though I'm proved right in every way. Of course by the time Sovereign started posting explaining that you can do legato in an even wetter environment than even I suggested with practical experience people didn't apologise or accept they were wrong they just stopped talking about it. 

But why *this *topic is so controversial I have no idea I have no idea why people are saying no no no its impossiblòò   Ãâ¹ò   Ãâºò   Ãâ»ò   Ãâ¼ò   Ãâ½ò   Ãâ¾ò   Ãâ¿ò   ÃâÀò   ÃâÁò


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 10, 2010)

Someone should record a mandolin on a silent stage with lots of air.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

midphase @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Perhaps the true answer to this type of product is found in Physical Modeling? I think Sampling is an inherently limited technique, frankly I'm surprised it hasn't hit a ceiling yet. I think this was helped in the late 90's by the advance of hard drive streaming, and then later a few years ago with the advance of scripting. I'm not sure how many more arrows Sampling has in its quiver, but sooner rather than later we'll reach the limitations of scripting as well, and then we might have nowhere else to turn but towards a brand new technology like Physical Modeling (or a hybrid of the two).



I can see physical modelling might help but I honestly can't see why it cant just be done with traditional methods we have right now, as I already explained. The strumming in "Rain Hammers" cue sounds *just *like the strumming in the Pettinhouse demo if you listen carefully. I believe there is also room for improvement in what Pettinhouse did just like Broadway Big Band improved on VSL's performance techniques and creating instruments that sounded better.



> I think what's not coming across regarding your question is that there are a myriad of harmonic and sympathetic interactions happening even on a very simple strum.



Therefore Pettinhouse's strumming system is impossible? 

Well it evidently is possible, unless you know something I don't. I don't discount the idea that theres all that going on but someone still managed to make a damn good replica of a guitar strumming anyway. Someone who is a flute or clarinet player for example will be able to argue in the same way that there's no way to get close to the sound of a real player with these instruments in a very similar way you're talking about, and yet we have very nice emulations of these instruments and theres more room for improvement still.




> Since Sampling is a static methodology of recreating a sound, the only way to get a truly convincing emulation is to have a non-practical amount of round robins, and to have them so specifically programmed to need you to literally select different presets depending on what type of cue you're working on.



You're right you'd need a lot of round robins, but you are also quickly venturing into strawman land again. 

VSL didn't need to create woodwinds samples that were capable of every single nuance the live instrument can play, and yet their woodwind libraries are still extremely usable. The legato, while flawed, still means we can write woodwind lines more expressively and realistically than before. 



> IMHO they're still not even close to what a real player would sound like.



See, strawman.

Live players are almost always better. But we are talking about what's possible with samples and how close you can get in attaining a certain sound with them.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> The problem is Kays that if a person (perhaps Ed) has not had the requisite experience of working with real players on these instruments, the subtleties, like the properties you mention, are simply lost on them.



Or maybe people who are so caught up in what live players can do are blinded to what samples can do and why we have samples in the first place and why people dare to innovate trying to capture an instrument that is so complex and expressive.

A flute is an incredibly expressive instrument and yet VSL have given us a much more expressive and realistic sampled representation of a flute. Can it do half the things a real flute can do? No, probably not. Does it matter? No, since its still useful in what it DOES do.

You're all too concerned about what the sample *won't* be able to do rather than what we *CAN *make it do.

For example, when I play a sample library I always keep it around even if it can only do ONE thing well, even if it fails at everything else.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 10, 2010)

Ok, putting that reference Ed posted, you could get that type of sound with samples. It's already processed quite a bit AND I'm almost certain he's using samples on a few instruments there.

Using those types of instruments in their bare quality would be a different manner.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> I'm talking about *stuff like this* which could be done rather straight forwardly it seems if sampled correctly. Skip to 34 seconds.



I think someone already suggested the Wavelore American Zither for this, you could get a similar vibe from that instrument. But I would just drive to Guitar Center and buy a cheap mandolin if I was set on that sound. If you listen to the CD track there's so much presence to it. It sounds like it was mixed analog because there so much definition in the mix. I even have some guesses to the mic and preamp used. You won't get that kind of detail with a sample. And even adding one live track to a sampled mix brings it to life, whether it's tambourine, shaker, strummed guitar, whatever. 

$50, as affordable as a Tonehammer sample: 
http://folk-instruments.musiciansfriend ... sku=519193


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 10, 2010)

synthetic @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking about *stuff like this* which could be done rather straight forwardly it seems if sampled correctly. Skip to 34 seconds.
> ...



There is dulcimer in there as well.


----------



## mf (Feb 10, 2010)

I think Ed's point is valid. Sample libraries are being created to replace live players only for certain types of low/no budget projects; and they deliver, for that. That pro players can do things that samples can't, that is: self-evident, irrelevant to the usefulness of samples, and by no means a reason against further improvement of sample libraries. They will of course be always more than one step behind live playing; but we, the users, will continue to be more than one step ahead comparing to where we are now.


----------



## cc64 (Feb 10, 2010)

Folmann @ Tue Feb 09 said:


> The challenge is that you can do 100.000 Ukelele samples, but at the end of the day you have so many articulations and so much stuff to keep track off - you might as well just play one instead.



Attending my kid's violin lessons a few years back i had the same realisation. The kids where just playing book 4 and already there were more techniques involved in a single phrase than the number of keyswitches i could ever remember... 

My conclusions were exactly your's Troels. The day we have the technology it will be as hard to master as actually playing the instrument and since it will always feel better to actually hold a violin or guitar in your hands well...

But i'm not saying we should stop trying to get closer though ; )

Claude


----------



## Niah (Feb 10, 2010)

[quote:df25fdb920="Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:13 pm"]

The problem is that there are essentially two kinds of participants in this forum: those with a fairly extensive amount of experience with terrific live players and those who mostly have only worked with samples and software instruments. The latter are at a big disadvantage in their attempts to evaluate products but sadly, many of them are not wise enough to at least recognize and acknowledge this. While it does not render their opinion moot, it doò   ÃðÙ   ÃðÚ   ÃðÛ   ÃðÜ   ÃðÝ   ÃðÞ   Ãðß   Ãðà   Ãðá   Ãðâ   Ãðã   Ãðä   Ãðå   Ãðæ   Ãðç   Ãðè   Ãðé   Ãðê   Ãðë   Ãðì   Ãðí   Ãðî   Ãðï   Ãðð   Ãðñ   Ãðò   Ãðó   Ãðô   Ãðõ   Ãðö   Ãð÷   Ãðø   Ãðù   Ãðú   Ãðû   Ãðü   Ãðý   Ãðþ   Ãðÿ   Ãñ    Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ	   Ãñ
   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ    Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ    Ãñ!   Ãñ"   Ãñ#   Ãñ$   Ãñ%   Ãñ&   Ãñ'   Ãñ(   Ãñ)   Ãñ*   Ãñ+   Ãñ,   Ãñ-   Ãñ.   Ãñ/   Ãñ0   Ãñ1   Ãñ2   Ãñ3   Ãñ4   Ãñ5   Ãñ6   Ãñ7   Ãñ8   Ãñ9   Ãñ:   Ãñ;   Ãñ<   Ãñ=   Ãñ>   Ãñ?   Ãñ@   ÃñA   ÃñB   ÃñC   ÃñD   ÃñE   ÃñF   ÃñG   ÃñH              ò   ÃñJ   ÃñK   ÃñL   ÃñM   ÃñN   ÃñO   ÃñP   ÃñQ   ÃñR   ÃñS   ÃñT   ÃñU   ÃñV   ÃñW   ÃñX   ÃñY   ÃñZ   Ãñ[   Ãñ\   Ãñ]   Ãñ^   Ãñ_   Ãñ`   Ãña   Ãñb   Ãñc   Ãñd   Ãñe   Ãñf   Ãñg   Ãñh   Ãñi   Ãñj   Ãñk   Ãñl   Ãñm   Ãñn   Ãño   Ãñp   Ãñq   Ãñr   Ãñs   Ãñt   Ãñu   Ãñv   Ãñw   Ãñx   Ãñy   Ãñz   Ãñ{   Ãñ|   Ãñ}   Ãñ~   Ãñ   Ãñ€   Ãñ   Ãñ‚   Ãñƒ   Ãñ„   Ãñ…   Ãñ†   Ãñ‡   Ãñˆ   Ãñ‰   ÃñŠ   Ãñ‹   ÃñŒ   Ãñ   ÃñŽ   Ãñ   Ãñ   Ãñ‘   Ãñ’   Ãñ“   Ãñ”   Ãñ•   Ãñ–   Ãñ—   Ãñ˜   Ãñ™   Ãñš   Ãñ›   Ãñœ   Ãñ   Ãñž   ÃñŸ   Ãñ    Ãñ¡   Ãñ¢   Ãñ£   Ãñ¤   Ãñ¥   Ãñ¦   Ãñ§   Ãñ¨   Ãñ©   Ãñª   Ãñ«   Ãñ¬   Ãñ­   Ãñ®   Ãñ¯   Ãñ°   Ãñ±   Ãñ²   Ãñ³   Ãñ´   Ãñµ   Ãñ¶   Ãñ·   Ãñ¸   Ãñ¹              ò   Ãñ»   Ãñ¼   Ãñ½   Ãñ¾   Ãñ¿   ÃñÀ   ÃñÁ   ÃñÂ   ÃñÃ   ÃñÄ   ÃñÅ   Ã


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is Kays that if a person (perhaps Ed) has not had the requisite experience of working with real players on these instruments, the subtleties, like the properties you mention, are simply lost on them.
> ...



This is all undeniably true and that is why we use samples. However, it does not change the fact that an actual human being playing an instrument that he/she has mastered that is blown, plucked, bowed, etc. brings sonic and artistic elements to the table that even a knowledgeable sample library based composer cannot replicate. 

The most masterful user of a VSL flute cannot play it as expressively and movingly as Sheridan Stokes plays the real thing and anyone who does not know and acknowledge this, toils in ignorance. 

Do I use a sampled flute frequently because my budgets are low? Sure. Would I ever on a well-budgeted project use a sampled flute instead of a real great player like Sheridan? Absolutely not.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 10, 2010)

1. Postulate #1-It is usually easier to get a good human sounding recording by using an actual human.

2. Postulate #2- samples keep getting better and better, and in budgeting both time and money, are often the more effective choice when producing a piece of music.

3. Postulate #3-when possible, a combination of samples and live players is probably preferable.

4. Postulate #4- it's all pretty subjective as to what's 'good' or 'good enough'. Each composer/producer has to decide that themselves.

5. Postulate #5- The personal investment in being RIGHT is positively awesome around here. The struggle for musical/subjective primacy boggles the mind.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

synthetic @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking about *stuff like this* which could be done rather straight forwardly it seems if sampled correctly. Skip to 34 seconds.
> ...



No that wouldn't work since it sounds very different. The reason is both those instruments you mentioned are hammered, the ones we're talking about are strummed.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 10, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> 1. Postulate #1-It is usually easier to get a good human sounding recording by using an actual human.
> 
> 2. Postulate #2- samples keep getting better and better, and in budgeting both time and money, are often the more effective choice when producing a piece of music.
> 
> ...



1. Postulate 1: Yep.

2. Postulate 2: Yes for money, no for time. It takes a lot more time making samples sound really good then just having real players play it well.

3. Postulate 3: Amend that to a combination of synths and live players and I agree because synths create sounds that real guys cannot. The only things samples add to the mix is inexpensive weight. They are useful for augmenting a 20 piece orchestra. They are unnecssary if you have an 80 piece orchestra.

4. Postulate 4: Yep. It is frequently the art of what is possible.

5. Postulate 5: Personally, I am not emotionally invested in being right. What I AM emotionally invested in, is promoting the idea that great real players need to be supported and hired whenever possible because they are so vastly superior to samples to anyone who knows enough to know the difference.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

midphase @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Just to qualify my statement a bit more, while I think the Pettinhouse Samples are quite good and a valiant effort, the strums in the Rain Hammers cue are more "human" for lack of a better term. The player is able to convey a deeper emotional message despite the rather limited palette that he's given to work with by adding variations and inflections that I don't know that are possible with the Pettinhouse library. The demos feel very static to me, like everything is played at the same dynamic and everything is very clean.
> 
> *But now Ed is going to say.*..what if they added more sloppiness and grime in there? What if some of the imperfections and human elements where sampled and incorporated?



Yes, that is indeed what I would say.

Broadway Big Band does legato better than VSL. Why? I don't know what they did differently, but whatever it was it worked. But before Broadway Big Band, should we have assumed VSL's was the best effort? Nope. There's usually always room for improvement. In this case, there really isn't much that you'd need to change. You even tell me what you'd need to change then incredulously dismiss it for no reason. 



> I get it Ed, but I don't know and neither do you. Maybe it would work, maybe not, maybe some people might think it's perfect, maybe not.



Yes I do know because if it works on another instrument it would work on this one. Its like saying recording interval samples on an irish whistle might not work because no ones ever done that before*, even though lots of other woodwinds have successfully done so.
_
*I think Westgate did actually record an Irish whistle legato but assume they didn't for the sake of argument.
_



> One of the things that I find a bit difficult on these conversations is to understand where the other person is coming from and what their standards are. Without any frame of reference as to who you are, and what you have done, it's difficult to have a fair discussion. After over 4000 posts, why the secrecy? My understanding is that you're a working composer based in England...how about a link to your web site with some demos? How about some details about the tools that you use for composition? Never mind...just ignore it as you always do.



Even though I have posted all that information before, why on earth does any of that matter? 

I'm not proposing something crazy here, just apply the same deep sampling methods we have in orchestral libraries to ethnic stuff like this. We already know it can be done, I'm just hoping someone will do it eventually.

I know it will work better on some instruments than on others, but with this kind of thing I see no reason why it can't work.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> This is all undeniably true and that is why we use samples. However, it does not change the fact that an actual human being playing an instrument that he/she has mastered that is blown, plucked, bowed, etc. brings sonic and artistic elements to the table that even a knowledgeable sample library based composer cannot replicate.
> 
> The most masterful user of a VSL flute cannot play it as expressively and movingly as Sheridan Stokes plays the real thing and anyone who does not know and acknowledge this, toils in ignorance.
> 
> Do I use a sampled flute frequently because my budgets are low? Sure. Would I ever on a well-budgeted project use a sampled flute instead of a real great player like Sheridan? Absolutely not.



I agree. 

Now Asher, tell me why any of this is relevant?

This isn't about live vs samples. This is about what is possible with samples.

You in another post:



> Personally, I am not emotionally invested in being right. What I AM emotionally invested in, is *promoting the idea that great real players need to be supported and hired whenever possible *because they are so vastly superior to samples to anyone who knows enough to know the difference.



I am talking about facts, not your ethics. The question is can we successfully emulate X with synth/samples. The question is not whether we feel ethically obliged hire a live player or if a live player is better.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> No that wouldn't work since it sounds very different. The reason is both those instruments you mentioned are hammered instruments, the ones we're talking about are strummed.



A mandolin isn't a hammered instrument, and it seems like maybe you can play a zither either way (although the library linked doesn't say which they used). Tonehammer zitherette is plucked.



Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> 2. Postulate 2: Yes for money, no for time. It takes a lot more time making samples sound really good then just having real players play it well.



Depends on the instrument and the part. For things like winds playing certain kinds of parts, definitely. But I'd argue that there are things like much percussion, pizz strings, and simple parts on many other instruments that would just be quicker to use samples. Especially if time spent includes creating parts, setting up to record, and even things like calling musicians to book them. And I'd argue that the proportion of parts that are quicker to do with midi will go up as available sample libraries improve.



> 3. Postulate 3: Amend that to a combination of synths and live players and I agree because synths create sounds that real guys cannot. The only things samples add to the mix is inexpensive weight. They are useful for augmenting a 20 piece orchestra. They are unnecssary if you have an 80 piece orchestra.



And yet aren't there still major film composers who record big orchestras but still layer in orchestral samples?


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

I'll try and put it this way.

Look at Symphobia. This has probably the greatest ratio I can think of when you are looking at samples that can do a lot of things very very well and a lot of things very very badly.

Do we say Symphobia is crap just because it can't do legato? Round Robins are pretty crappy as well, but functional. etc etc etc. So why do we like it? Because what it IS good at it does very well. 

We could get into many more comparisons here like LASS and so on. No one complains that it can't do FX, but it can do many other things well. Solo strings can make a near unlimited amount of different sounds, impossible to capture in samples unless you're going for some kind of physical modelling thing and we really don't know just how close that can get with strings. But that's not the point, that's not how you judge how good a sample library is. 

My point is the same could be true of what instrument I'm suggesting here. You may not be able to perform every nuance of the instrument, in fact not even The Trumpet can do that. But that is irrelevant. The question is, what can we do with it that WILL sound good? I think the answer is there's many things you could successfully sample in this way. Rejecting the idea that you can do it simply because "a live player is better" is rejecting the point of samples in the first place.


----------



## midphase (Feb 10, 2010)

" The question is can we successfully emulate X with synth/samples."

I think the answer is not with the current state of technology. I think we'll get close, and perhaps that will be good enough for some. If the answer was yes, we wouldn't have this discussion in the first place.

I think you can step up to the plate if you feel like it, you can sample tons of round robins, tons of articulations, and on and on. At the end of the process you'll probably have something similar to the Pettinhouse guitar. Some will love it, and still will feel that it's still no cigar.

Can we end this conversation now?


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 10, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Postulate #1-It is usually easier to get a good human sounding recording by using an actual human.
> ...



Personally, I find piano samples helpful and capable of replacing a piano. That is an instrument I play, so perhaps not the best example, but I feel the same about various rhythm section stuff, bass especially. I play bass but tend to program it because to me, it is easier and faster to get a good sound.

If we're just talking about orchestral instruments, I mostly agree. Whether or not I can achieve a passable sound with a sample, the live player is almost always superior, depending on the availability of top players, of course.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > No that wouldn't work since it sounds very different. The reason is both those instruments you mentioned are hammered instruments, the ones we're talking about are strummed.
> ...



I know a mandolin isn't hammered, that's my point. 

Whether or not the Zither is hammered or plucked is really irrelevant, the point is they are not an ethnic guitar that you strum on. Consequently they do not sound like the example from Newman that we have been discussing, so using them could only get you a somewhat similar ethnicy stringed sound but would still be very differen't.



> And yet aren't there still major film composers who record big orchestras but still layer in orchestral samples?



The funny thing is Newman has used Prosonus String and Pizz sounds quite a lot in some cues and you do ask yourself why sometimes, if he has the orchestra there. I can't imagine its money at this stage.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > e.
> ...



The key word is "successfully." Are we talking aesthetically or commercially? As Kays has said, what is "successful' to you may not be to him or me.

I can "successfully" emulate with samples enough to serve the picture and please the client if he/she has a realistic expectation of what is/is not possible. And the more experienced he/she is with a real orchestra, the more he/she already knows what is possible.

I cannot "successfully" emulate with samples to the point where I can say "this sounds every bit as good as a good orchestra. Nor can you. Nor can Guy Bacos. Nor can T. J. Nor can Colin. 

I have never heard an orchestral piece re-created with samples that would not sound significantly better played by a good orchestra IMHO.

Mike Giacchino told a bunch of us that J.J. Abrams originally contacted him to score "Alias" because he loved his video game music and wanted "that sound". Mike told him, "The only way for me to give you that sound is to have an orchestra." J.J. believed him and fought for it and won. The same was true for "Lost."


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

midphase @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> " The question is can we successfully emulate X with synth/samples."
> 
> I think the answer is not with the current state of technology.



Name me one thing about the sound in Rain Hammers that you feel requires some kind technological breakthrough?

Here's an example of what I mean:

If this was pre-VSL and I was pointing you to a real flute, you could say you'd have to find a way of sampling the sounds between the notes. 



> Can we end this conversation now?



You're free to leave the thread you know.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 10, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet aren't there still major film composers who record big orchestras but still layer in orchestral samples?



Yep. And every record I hear is compressed to death. Neither would be my aesthetic choice. given my druthers.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Mike Connelly @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> ...



TJB may be able to create tracks that are indistinguishable from live ones...but that one ain't it.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> The post you replied to (with "both those instruments you mentioned are hammered instrument") mentioned zither and mandolin. So I'm not sure what other instrument you were referring to if not those two?



Tonehammer and Wavelore, ie. two instruments. Sorry I see where your confusion came from. 



> Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > If I point you to TJ sampled orchestra tracks you will not be able to tell the difference
> ...



Oh really? If you're being honest, then its only because you know it isn't live. Anyway if you again want to be difficult just think of those examples that you do feel prove the point.


----------



## mf (Feb 10, 2010)

JohnG @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Some of your posts, though, come across as dismissive, harsh, and even hostile. For example, I don't think that what Kays or others here have to say is typically "self evident" or "irrelevant" as you wrote above.


"Self-evident" and "irrelevant to the usefulness of samples" were modifiers of _the superiority of live players' capacities,_ and not of anyone's previous comments. I was not arguing but talking about an objective fact that no one here is questioning, afaics. I was not disagreeing with anything. Btw, when I disagree with something I usually quote it, and I am rather specific and direct. In that post I was in fact agreeing with Ed's points. "Dismissive"? "Harsh"?? "Hostile"??? I'm sorry, but there's hardly anything negative in my post. It was all positive. Here:


> I think Ed's point is valid. Sample libraries are being created to replace live players only for certain types of low/no budget projects; and they deliver, for that. That pro players can do things that samples can't, that is: self-evident, irrelevant to the usefulness of samples, and by no means a reason against further improvement of sample libraries. They will of course be always more than one step behind live playing; but we, the users, will continue to be more than one step ahead comparing to where we are now.



As a side note, I find it funny that you picked my post and call it "harsh and hostile" while missing all the abuses towards Ed. Not that he's not doing fine, just an observation.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Tonehammer and Wavelore, ie. two instruments. Sorry I see where your confusion came from.



Ah, I got confused by that post too and had to reread it before I understood. His second recommendation was to buy an actual mandolin (and was saying you can get a cheap one for the price of a TH library).



> If you're being honest, then its only because you know it isn't live.



I hear things that give it away. I still think there are very few sampled tracks that sound completely real (although it seems that we're getting closer and closer), and we're still at a point where ones that do can pull it off by being limited to writing that samples are good at.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> This is all pedantic nonsense, Asher.
> 
> If I point you to TJ sampled orchestra tracks you will not be able to tell the difference, neither it seems, can anyone else, even people who claim to have a lot of experience. (_i wonder when someone tells me that track is live)_
> 
> ...



Pedantic is a word frequently thrown at more knowledgeable people by less knowledgeable ones so I am fine with that.

1. If you think T.J.s piece that you linked (which is very well done) sounds exactly live a great orchestra then thank you for making clear what I suspected, which is that you simply do not know the difference.

2. I did not say that samples have to sound like crap and that one should not bother. I simply said that there is still a significant qualitative difference and my guess is that if you ask T.J., he will say agree also, as Guy Bacos has frequently done in this forum.

That is the reason Newman uses a live player. He is quite comfortable with samples and synths so when he uses a live player instead it is not just because he enjoys spending money. It is because he knows the difference. As does Giacchino. As do any of the working composers in the film industry who work with both real orchestras and samples.

You apparently do not. So my only hope is that not too many guys like you become really successful so that knowledge of the value of a real orchestra does not become even more of an endangered species than it already is.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 10, 2010)

Has anyone ever recorded orchestra and then said, "nope, the mockup is better?" Maybe specific effects or percussion, but not a whole cue I'm aware of. 

Jeff Rona has a saying, "Sounds as good as the real thing... until you hear the real thing."


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Pedantic is a word frequently thrown at more knowledgeable people by less knowledgeable ones so I am fine with that.
> 
> 1. If you think T.J.s piece that you linked (which is very well done) sounds exactly live a great orchestra then thank you for making clear what I suspected, which is that you simply do not know the difference.



I'm going to stop myself from being annoying by such a stupid arrogant statement.

Even though you are well aware of what has happened in the past on this forum and others like when TJ first made Mojo Madness and qualified people swore blind that it had to be live. But also with the new HS demo, people said I was the one that was deaf for not hearing that "obviously" the choirs and or brass are real. But i guess those guys were the ones who were deaf, right? I guess you knew it all along!

I reference the old Two Steps from Hell Vol1 stuff from several years ago because that's stuff I know is sampled. In their newer libraries I can't tell where they used the live stuff and where they used the sampled stuff and I know if I showed you two different tracks you would not be able to tell me the difference or why one is sampled and one isn't sampled. I could even mix it up a bit and show you tracks from Immediate Music which sound kinda sampled but are in fact live. 

But we aren't even meant to be talking about perfection, we're talking about what sounds good. Since you clearly such a freakin' genius you can spoòn   Ä¨n   Ä©o   Äªo   Ä«o   Ä¬o   Ä­o   Ä®o   Ä¯o   Ä°o   Ä±o   Ä²o   Ä³o   Ä´o   Äµo   Ä¶o   Ä·p   Ä¸p   Ä¹p   Äºp   Ä»p   Ä¼p   Ä½p   Ä¾p   Ä¿p   ÄÀp   ÄÁp   ÄÂp   ÄÃp   ÄÄp   ÄÅp   ÄÆp   ÄÇp   ÄÈp   ÄÉq   ÄÊq   ÄËq   ÄÌq   ÄÍq   ÄÎq   ÄÏq   ÄÐq   ÄÑq   ÄÒq   ÄÓq   ÄÔq   ÄÕq   ÄÖq   Ä×q   ÄØq   ÄÙq   ÄÚq   ÄÛq   ÄÜq   ÄÝq   ÄÞq   Äßq   Äàq   Äáq   Äâq   Äãq   Ääq   Äåq   Äæq   Äçq   Äèq   Äéq   Äêq   Äëq   Äìq   Äíq   Äîq   Äïq   Äðq   Äñq   Äòq   Äóq   Äôq   Äõq   Äöq   Ä÷q   Äøq   Äùq   Äúq   Äûq   Äüq   Äýq   Äþq   Äÿq   Ä q   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Ä	q   Ä
q   Äq   Äq   Ä q   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Ä              òq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Äq   Ä q   Ä!q   Ä"q   Ä#q   Ä$q   Ä%q   Ä&q   Ä'q   Ä(q   Ä)q   Ä*q   Ä+q   Ä,q   Ä-q   Ä.q   Ä/q   Ä0q   Ä1q   Ä2q   Ä3q   Ä4q   Ä5q   Ä6q   Ä7q   Ä8q   Ä9q   Ä:q   Ä;q   Ä<q   Ä=q   Ä>q   Ä?q   Ä@q   ÄAq   ÄBq   ÄCq   ÄDq   ÄEq   ÄFq   ÄGq   ÄHq   ÄIq   ÄJq   ÄKq   ÄLq   ÄMq   ÄNq   ÄOq   ÄPq   ÄQq   ÄRq   ÄSr   ÄTr   ÄUr   ÄVr   ÄWr   ÄXr   ÄYr   ÄZr   Ä[r   Ä\r   Ä]r   Ä^r   Ä_r   Ä`r   Äar   Äbr   Äcr   Ädr   Äer   Äfr   Ägr   Ähr   Äir   Äjr   Äkr   Älr   Ämr   Änr   Äor   Äpr   Äqr   Ärr   Äsr   Ätr   Äur   Ävr   Äwr   Äxr   Äyr   Äzr   Ä{r   Ä|r   Ä}s   Ä~s   Äs   Ä€s   Äs   Ä‚s   Äƒs   Ä„s   Ä…s   Ä†s   Ä‡s   Äˆ              òs   ÄŠs   Ä‹s   ÄŒs   Äs   ÄŽs   Äs   Äs   Ä‘s   Ä’s   Ä“s   Ä”s   Ä•s   Ä–s   Ä—s   Ä˜s   Ä™s   Äšs   Ä›s   Äœs   Äs   Äžs   ÄŸs   Ä s   Ä¡s   Ä¢s   Ä£s   Ä¤s   Ä¥s   Ä¦s   Ä§s   Ä¨s   Ä©s   Äªs   Ä«s   Ä¬s   Ä­s   Ä®s   Ä¯s   Ä°s   Ä±


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed, please point me to the post where I said samples had to sound like crap because I cannot find it. I use samples practically every day of my life to make a living and I think I make them sound good. I enjoy working with them and I am grateful to have them.

That said, if I hòz   Ä	z   Ä	z   Ä	z   Ä	{   Ä	{   Ä	{   Ä	{   Ä	{   Ä {   Ä	!{   Ä	"{   Ä	#{   Ä	${   Ä	%{   Ä	&{   Ä	'{   Ä	({   Ä	){   Ä	*{   Ä	+{   Ä	,{   Ä	-{   Ä	.{   Ä	/{   Ä	0{   Ä	1{   Ä	2{   Ä	3{   Ä	4{   Ä	5{   Ä	6{   Ä	7{   Ä	8{   Ä	9{   Ä	:{   Ä	;{   Ä	<{   Ä	={   Ä	>{   Ä	?|   Ä	@|   Ä	A|   Ä	B|   Ä	C|   Ä	D|   Ä	E|   Ä	F|   Ä	G|   Ä	H|   Ä	I|   Ä	J|   Ä	K|   Ä	L|   Ä	M|   Ä	N|   Ä	O|   Ä	P|   Ä	Q|   Ä	R|   Ä	S|   Ä	T|   Ä	U|   Ä	V|   Ä	W|   Ä	X|   Ä	Y|   Ä	Z|   Ä	[|   Ä	\|   Ä	]|   Ä	^|   Ä	_|   Ä	`|   Ä	a|   Ä	b|   Ä	c|   Ä	d|   Ä	e|   Ä	f|   Ä	g|   Ä	h|   Ä	i|   Ä	j|   Ä	k|   Ä	l|   Ä	m|   Ä	n|   Ä	o|   Ä	p|   Ä	q|   Ä	r|   Ä	s|   Ä	t|   Ä	u|   Ä	v|   Ä	w|   Ä	x|   Ä	y|   Ä	z|   Ä	{|   Ä	||   Ä	}|   Ä	~|   Ä	|   Ä	€|   Ä	|   Ä	‚|   Ä	ƒ|   Ä	„|   Ä	…|   Ä	†|   Ä	‡              ò|   Ä	‰|   Ä	Š|   Ä	‹|   Ä	Œ|   Ä	|   Ä	Ž|   Ä	|   Ä	|   Ä	‘|   Ä	’|   Ä	“|   Ä	”|   Ä	•|   Ä	–|   Ä	—|   Ä	˜|   Ä	™|   Ä	š|   Ä	›|   Ä	œ|   Ä	|   Ä	ž|   Ä	Ÿ|   Ä	 |   Ä	¡|   Ä	¢|   Ä	£|   Ä	¤|   Ä	¥}   Ä	¦}   Ä	§}   Ä	¨}   Ä	©}   Ä	ª}   Ä	«}   Ä	¬}   Ä	­}   Ä	®}   Ä	¯}   Ä	°}   Ä	±}   Ä	²}   Ä	³}   Ä	´}   Ä	µ}   Ä	¶}   Ä	·}   Ä	¸}   Ä	¹}   Ä	º}   Ä	»}   Ä	¼}   Ä	½}   Ä	¾}   Ä	¿}   Ä	À}   Ä	Á}   Ä	Â}   Ä	Ã}   Ä	Ä}   Ä	Å}   Ä	Æ}   Ä	Ç}   Ä	È}   Ä	É}   Ä	Ê}   Ä	Ë}   Ä	Ì}   Ä	Í~   Ä	Î~   Ä	Ï~   Ä	Ð~   Ä	Ñ~   Ä	Ò~   Ä	Ó~   Ä	Ô~   Ä	Õ~   Ä	Ö~   Ä	×~   Ä	Ø~   Ä	Ù~   Ä	Ú~   Ä	Û~   Ä	Ü~   Ä	Ý


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Ed, please point me to the post where I said samples had to sound like crap because I cannot find it. I use samples practically every day of my life to make a living and I think I make them sound good. I enjoy working with them and I am grateful to have them.



You didn't read my post correctly. I'll highlight the relevant bit you missed:

_"Yes, you did say that if they don't sound 100% live they sound crap and they need not have bothered, *after all why else would you be arguing with me on this point to begin with?

You remember what my point was don't you? How about you tell me what my point was and we can all see how your arguments relate to it, how about that? "*_

So what I said was that if you are not saying this then *nothing *you are saying here is relevant. 

I also see you didn't tell me what my point was, I didn't think you would.



> That said, if I hand a mockup meister my score that I did in the 80's/90's when I had the budgets for orchestras, that I wrote usually in 2 weeks, recorded and mixed in one day with the direction, "Go ahead, use whatever samples you want. Take as much time as you need. Make it sound as good as what I recorded with an orchestra here to someone who knows well what an orchestra sounds like.", he/she will not be able to do so. No, not even T.J.




Ok just so you know this has nothing to do with ANYTHING ON THIS THREAD and that apparently you just wanted to rail against samples in general rather that actually discuss the actual topic..... but....

Compositions written for live musicians will usually have a hard time translating to samples and still sound good. Precisely BECAUSE live musicians can do whatever you want them to do whereas with samples you only have a limited number of set choices. Strangely you keep acting like I disagree with that even though I've said this over and over again in different ways. The fact is however that music written *for *the samples on the other hand *will *react much better to those same samples. 

You may dislike the stylistic box that it requires you to put your composition into sacrificing ideas because they just wouldn't sound good with samples. But the fact remains that sampled music written for samples will sound better and will be easier to make it sound better compared with trying to make samples play something originally written for a live orchestra. 

To somehow use this argument a way to say that sampled music can't sound good is pretty stupid *because it presumes* that one would only write music for live musicians and make samples play it, regardless of how well the samples are able to pull it off. 




> Because he/she will not have a guy like Sid Page leading the string section, designating the bowings so that the string players play as one while still preserving the individuality of the tone of their specific instrument and technique. Nor will he have a guy who's big heart literally comes through his trumpet the way Rick Baptist does. Nor will he have a lady like Gail Levant, who makes one's more mundane harp writing magical. Nor will he have someone like Sheridan Stokes who adds nuances to a flute part that are un-notateable and are the sole artistic and intellectual property of a man who has spent 40 years working on his tone, his style, his tonguing, etc. Nor will he have a harmonica player like Tommy Morgan who does things that no one even knew a harmonica was capable of until he showed them.



I'll just restate again here that you seem to want to argue against something completely off topic. Why do you want to do that?

When did I say live instruments can be compared to samples in terms of complexity and depth of possible expression? When did I say live orchestras aren't needed anymore? When did I say *anything *that warrents you making any of these points? Why did you just come here assuming I was arguing something I didn't even imply ?

My actual point is so ridiculously simple its absurd it has gotten to this level of "debate".



> This is what Thomas Newman knows that you do not apparently.



Strawman. You seem to have no idea what I am talking about, maybe you should try listening instead of presuming. 



> You can call me arrogant, pedantic, or any other names you care to for saying this Ed, but sometimes when the emperor is wearing no clothes, someone needs to point out to him that he is naked. It is up to you whether you choose to now get dressed.



That's nice.

So can you please state in a few sentences or less what my point in this thread has been? After you've done that please tell me how ANY of your points relate to it being either right or wrong?

Thanks.

Even just the first part, it doesn't require reams of text, just tell me what my point is. I dare say you will refuse to do so, please prove me wrong.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 10, 2010)

Wow, we've reached the point where people not being able to figure out what your point is, is something to brag about.

Hilarious.

And Ed, you're putting words in people's mouths again. "you did say that if they don't sound 100% live they sound crap and they need not have bothered" or "sampled music can't sound good" simply isn't true, and it's tacky to take what you assume someone means and insist they said it.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Wow, we've reached the point where people not being able to figure out what your point is, is something to brag about.
> 
> Hilarious.



I'll do it for you. 

Re: The ethnicy strummy sound you can hear in "Rain Hammers" from the Road to Perdition score. It is possible to create a sample library that can give you that kind of sound. That it would require minor modifications to whatever technique Pettinhouse used to create their acoustic guitar strum patches.

Maybe you can tell me how anything Asher said relates to that and yes my point has *always *been that simple. 



> And Ed, you're putting words in people's mouths again. "you did say that if they don't sound 100% live they sound crap and they need not have bothered" or "sampled music can't sound good" simply isn't true, and it's tacky to take what you assume someone means and insist they said it.



So now you're actually going to quote-mine me out of context? :roll: Hilarious indeed Mike.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 10, 2010)

Fine, I'll take away that excuse, the full quotes don't change the fact that you're putting words in his mouth.

"Yes, you did say that if they don't sound 100% live they sound crap and they need not have bothered, after all why else would you be arguing with me on this point to begin with?"

Where did he say that? He didn't.

"Your argument is black and white. If it doesn't sound exactly like, 100%, like a real orchestra then its crap and you might as well not bother."

Where did he say that? He didn't.

"To somehow use this argument a way to say that sampled music can't sound good is pretty stupid because it presumes that one would only write music for live musicians and make samples play it, regardless of how well the samples are able to pull it off."

Where did he say that? He didn't.

If he really did say any of those things, go ahead and quote him. If you can't, you're just putting words in his mouth. It's one thing to disagree with someone but another to try and "win" a discussion by misrepresenting what they are saying. It's especially hypocritical to keep whining about straw men when repeatedly doing exactly that.

So the quotes, please?


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 10, 2010)

For some reason this thread has brought back some of my old scary memories of Houston Haynes and his resume.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 10, 2010)

There is one thing we're forgetting here guys:

Most audiences not musically inclined can't tell the different between real and samples nowadays.


----------



## artsoundz (Feb 10, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> There is one thing we're forgetting here guys:
> 
> Most audiences not musically inclined can't tell the different between real and samples nowadays.



I know what you are trying to say here and I might add,clients/producer/directors don't either.

But it's a bit misleading. They might not REALLY know what they like at any given moment and if they were sat down and presented with ,say, a double blind study, I bet they would most often choose a live recording. Sitting in a movie theater -They may not care so much about samples versus live at any particular moment in a film simply because they are unaware.or ignorant on the subject and just want to be entertained. 

But I think audiences aren't as dumb as we suspect. It's up to composers-live or sampled-to be pushing the envelope. BTW_ I get a sense that in no other time has there been the kind of progress being made w/samples as what's being done now. I find it really exciting and only in the last year or so has the bar been seriously raised. Really exciting times are ahead.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Fine, I'll take away that excuse, the full quotes don't change the fact that you're putting words in his mouth.



And where in this post Mike do you tell me how anything Asher said relates to my point? I just told you what it was, so you can't say you don't understand it. 

If everything he has said has been against a strawman, then he is the one who has been putting words in my mouth wouldn't you agree?



> "Yes, you did say that if they don't sound 100% live they sound crap and they need not have bothered, after all why else would you be arguing with me on this point to begin with?"
> 
> Where did he say that? He didn't.



As I said in the reply to Asher, you missed the part where I said:
*
...after all why else would you be arguing with me on this point to begin with?"*

So if any of Asher's arguments have *any *bearing on my points here in this thread then he *has *to be arguing this, if not then he has to admit that none of his points are relevant and he has been arguing against a strawman all along and just wants to use this discussion to jump in and provide his own opinion on sample libraries vs live instruments pretending to refute a point I never made or implied. Most of the time I don't even disagree with him, yet he still pretends I do anyway! 

So that is why I ask you, again, what argument has Asher made that is actually relevant to my point?



> "Your argument is black and white. If it doesn't sound exactly like, 100%, like a real orchestra then its crap and you might as well not bother."
> 
> Where did he say that? He didn't.



I said that in responce to what he said to this comment I made:
_
"I am talking about facts, not your ethics. The question is can we successfully emulate X with synth/samples. The question is not whether we feel ethically obliged hire a live player or if a live player is better._"

Asher then started telling me that live players are better than samples, that no one has ever successfully emulated a live performance.

The part in question is when he said:

"I cannot "successfully" emulate with samples to the point where I can say "this sounds every bit as good as a good orchestra. Nor can you"

Why is he telling me this Mike? Why is he making this point? 

If it relates to what I'm saying, if I assume he isn't attacking something I never said or implied, then I *must *assume that he meant that in a certain way. 

*He defines what he means by "successful".*

To Asher then, to "successfully emulate x with synth/samples" would be to make it sound "*every bit as good as a good x"*.

Therefore, since my point was about if we could successfully emulate that ethnic strumming sound in Rain Hammers and since Asher defines "successfully" to mean "every bit as good as" the real instrument, then Asher must obviously believe there's no point bothering since I always said it wouldn't be a perfect emulation of the instrument.

So yes, I am fully justified in saying that.



> "To somehow use this argument a way to say that sampled music can't sound good is pretty stupid because it presumes that one would only write music for live musicians and make samples play it, regardless of how well the samples are able to pull it off."
> 
> Where did he say that? He didn't.



Yes he did that's why he gave me that over the top example to demonstrate it, why else would he say that something written for a live orchestra doesn't sound as good with samples? He even said written FOR live players, he even went more over the top in order to demonstrate the point when he could have just said that live players will make a piece sound better.

Asher has said over and over again that he doesn't like the idea of samples and even specifically that he is here to promote that we use live players over samples as "_great real players need to be supported_" he says.

If Asher never meant that sampled music can't sound good then *what is he disagreeing with me about?*



> If he really did say any of those things, go ahead and quote him. If you can't, you're just putting words in his mouth. It's one thing to disagree with someone but another to try and "win" a discussion by misrepresenting what they are saying. It's especially hypocritical to keep whining about straw men when repeatedly doing exactly that.
> 
> So the quotes, please?



I'm going to ask you again, what argument has Asher made that is actually relevant to mine that I reiterated again a post ago? Come on, come up with something.


----------



## Dan Mott (Feb 10, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> There is one thing we're forgetting here guys:
> 
> Most audiences not musically inclined can't tell the different between real and samples nowadays.



I agree with you, Mr Pinard.

Many (most) listeners out there wouldn't really care if the samples were real or not, infact most people are ignorant and completely oblivious to what goes behind the scenes of production anyway, not so much us composers who've studied though, and quite frankly i don't think they even think about it.

The fact is, if it sounds good, then it sounds good and somebody out there can like a certain piece and call it a good song, or score, this has been said time after time by many people.

I think that many would infact think SO is a real orchestra, the type of people who haven't studied orchestration, or don't listen to real recordings of an orchestra often couldn't tell the difference between them since they don't have the ear for it, not to mention it isn't trained. I was new to the sample world of strings, hence that i was new to real recorded orchestras, i was one who couldn't tell a difference at all and i was infact so blinded that i couldn't believe that the movies i saw and the productions i heard infact were samples, i didn't even think this was possible, not to mention that i was convinced that SO was real from the demos i heard, amazing stuff.

T.J's demo at the end of the HS demo.......... my god, i'm sure you all saw how many people said and thought it was real including me. I was so convinced it was real that when i heard they were samples i got that stomach feeling and i was worried for people who actually play in an orchestra and what the future will be in those terms.

Crazy stuff.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 10, 2010)

Dan-Jay @ Wed Feb 10 said:


> Nathan Allen Pinard @ Thu Feb 11 said:
> 
> 
> > There is one thing we're forgetting here guys:
> ...



It's also what your used to. 

Remember when the EWSO demos came out for the first time? Amazing right?

Well, when I went back and listened again they sounded obviously sampled. It's that "first time" hype that gets people. HS is now having that effect on people.

I've listened to sample libs for ages, so it's starting to not happen with me anymore. I'm instantly noticing things, more so in strings. I've tried to get my strings perfect for years, I'm more picky about it than most. Plus I've written for strings.


----------



## Ed (Feb 10, 2010)

You see how off topic this all has gotten?

How does *ANY* of this relate to the question of to what extent you can create a sample library that can create those cool little ethnicy strumming sounds Newman likes?

No one even disagrees that live players are better and sample libraries aren't as good as a good live musician. Its like some people have an emotional investment in the idea that its impossible and so have to try and steer the conversation to something else.

Its no different from someone saying they'd like some woodwind flourishes like Williams uses, (_which we now have a product that provides this called Hollywood Winds_) and someone arguing that this product can't be made since real woodwinds can do so much more. Its *exactly *the same as this example here in this thread.


----------



## midphase (Feb 10, 2010)

Ok...I know this is not related to Ed's whole quest for fire thing...but since I"m working on a film right now that requires a lot of acousticky type of stuff, I decided to do a small test using the downloadable Pettinhouse Acoustic Guitar instrument.

Here's what I did:

I played the Pettinhouse Guitar very loosely and sloppily to emulate the way I would actually play the guitar myself (because I kinda suck) and this is what the cue sounded like: 

http://www.musicbykays.com/clients/vi-control/VI_GTR_01.mp3

Then, I took out my brand new Taylor which I bought just for this gig and sloppily played it the best that I could and here's what that sounds like:

http://www.musicbykays.com/clients/vi-control/VI_GTR_02.mp3

Lastly, I blended the two (samples and the real deal) which is what I'm going with to the client:

http://www.musicbykays.com/clients/vi-control/VI_GTR_03.mp3

Sorry for the crap mix and all, those are all roughs anyway...but hopefully you'll get the idea.


----------



## midphase (Feb 10, 2010)

PS.

I know someone's gonna ask...so the answer is LASS and Malmsjo.


----------



## Damon (Feb 10, 2010)

TNewman uses an ethnic guitar called a Saz that was sampled on the old 'Ethno World 1' sample library. I think that might be kind of the tone you're talking about, I dunno. It's played very rhythmically on high strings. 

He used it in 'American Beauty' in the scene where Lester Burnham is in the gym watching the cheerleader dance 'especially' for him (lol).

Hope that helps.

-D


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 10, 2010)

Ed....you're right!!! Rightrightright!!

Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong!! Wrong wrongwrong!!

( now Larry wonders if Ed needs 700 words to respond to his obvious rightness)


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 11, 2010)

This whole thread can be distilled down to a few quotes:

Patrick wrote: “The reason why the string instruments work sounds so cool in TN stuff is that it is played live by an excellent musician. You can have all the multi-sampled instruments in the world, you're not gonna get close. “

Ed, wrote: “That's just not true though, if you sample enough round robins in a certain way it will sound quite close, or at least, damn good. “

Kays wrote: “Ed, I don't know what you do or who you are (link to your website perhaps?), but if you're a "MIDI-only" type of composer, then the argument is wasted. The type of performance variations and organic quality that a real player brings to a session (especially when talking about stringed instruments) is simply difficult with the current technology to emulate. I have yet to hear a non-phrases guitar library that truly compares to actually asking your buddy to come down and play on your track. 
However, if you have no frame of reference from actual experience, it's tough to convince you otherwise.”

Patrick then wrote: “Not so. I am surprised that you haven't caught TN interviews, with him mentioning that he uses the guys from his team for the creativity and input that they bring to the table. “

And ED, here is where YOU took in in the wrong direction and I went after you: “The people who claimed it wasn't possible claimed it wasn't possible because with a live player you can do so much more, which means VSL need not have bothered to dare suggest you can produce a more realistic legato articulation or Pettinhouse a more realistic strumming sound. Obviously it won't sound 100% the same, but through trying to get very close we can still end up with a similar and likely cool sound..”
And
“Who cares that samples aren't as good as the real thing? Obviously in most cases they are not, but that is and was true for all samples ever. If we had this logic no samples would ever be made. “

No one here suggested that samples cannot get better, will not get better, should not get better. . No one here has argued that it is not reality that budgets being what they are, samples are a necessary tool. No one here has argued that we cannot make them sound satisfactory, “cool”, or whatever enough to accomplish our goals of serving the project and pleasing the client. We ALL agree with that, Ed. That is why we are here!

What guys like Kays, Patrick, myself, and to a degree Thomas Newman are telling you based on knowledge and experience, 2 things I suspect you lack are:

We like samples, use samples, and we are glad they are improving and support their improvement by buying them. But nonetheless, we understand that because we cannot assimilate the technique, individual instrument tone, vibrato, heart, soul, brain, years of playing each specific instrument, etc. there will always be some distance between what we can achieve with samples and what a collection of great players can achieve. How important that distance is to a composer ranges from your “Who cares?” to guys like Kays, Patrick and me, who care a lot. 

You have been here quite a while. As Kays pointed out, you have no link to a website that would lead us to believe you are accomplished. The only Member Compositions I could find that you have posted involve pre-packaged Symphobia sections and gimmicky use of Tonehammer. 

The only thing you have demonstrated to me is that you have strong opinions, none of which you have backed up except by making more exhaustive and stubborn arguments.

Prove me wrong, big shot. Let’s hear some examples of excellent writing, see some evidence of significant compositional/career achievements, etc. If not, maybe, just maybe, you ought to take a back seat to those who have and can.

Not all opinions are equal. Yours is not equal to Kays. Kays is not equal to Thomas Newman. Personal respect is a birthright but artistic/professional respect is not. It is earned. Earn some. My guess is that your response will be, that you don’t need to prove anything to anyone, which certainly will be very convenient for you.


----------



## Ed (Feb 11, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> This whole thread can be distilled down to a few quotes:
> 
> Patrick wrote: “The reason why the string instruments work sounds so cool in TN stuff is that it is played live by an excellent musician. You can have all the multi-sampled instruments in the world, you're not gonna get close. “
> 
> ...



Wrong.

When I said you could make a very satisfactory emulation of that sound in the Rain Hammers track that Newman uses a lot if sampled in the right way, I was told that only a live player could do it it, that it was just too complex.

Why? 

Because a guitar is so complicated, you have all kinds of things going on, string resonances interacting with each other and so on. At least this point deals with SAMPLES and the question of if we could sample something to the standard of being able to sufficiently approximate this sound.

Then it somehow started progressing into something I don't even disagree with and which every one of our (you and I) arguments centred around: I was told that Newman uses a live player because a good musician can provide so much more than a sample. I was told that live players are preferable, that they are better. etc etc etc

I don't disagree, why were you so intent on telling me things I already agree with?



> What guys like Kays, Patrick, myself, and to a degree Thomas Newman are telling you based on knowledge and experience, 2 things I suspect you lack are:
> 
> We like samples, use samples, and we are glad they are improving and support their improvement by buying them. But nonetheless, we understand that because we cannot assimilate the technique, individual instrument tone, vibrato, heart, soul, brain, years of playing each specific instrument, etc. there will always be some distance between what we can achieve with samples and what a collection of great players can achieve. How important that distance is to a composer ranges from your “Who cares?” to guys like Kays, Patrick and me, who care a lot.



Thanks for illustrating what I'm saying Asher, that you've been arguing against something I never denied.

None of what you said I disagree with and I even said exactly the same in different ways all through this thread and even the very posts you replied to!



> Prove me wrong, big shot. Let’s hear some examples of excellent writing, see some evidence of significant compositional/career achievements, etc. If not, maybe, just maybe, you ought to take a back seat to those who have and can.



I'm confused how me being a good composer or not would show you weren't arguing against something I never said or implied...

If I was John Williams, that wouldn't necessarily make me right about this either its completely irrelevant.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 11, 2010)

I think Asher and Ed should have a compositional shootout!


----------



## JohnG (Feb 11, 2010)

batons at dawn

"Ha-TCHAH!"


----------



## midphase (Feb 11, 2010)

I think the key words are "satisfactory emulation"

Actually "satisfactory"

Aside from being highly subjective, I say "no" and have yet to be proven wrong (to myself). Maybe someone will come up and prove me wrong and really take the cake when it comes to simulating the strumming of an ethnic instrument, but the problem is that we can't see the future, but only look to the past for answers, and right now repeated attempts to capture satisfactory emulation of strums in existing libraries has come up short. Pettinhouse is inching ever so close and I commend Andrea on his efforts, but as I thought I shown on my examples above, (to me) the sampled guitar by itself sounded somewhat sterile and adding the real thing on top was necessary to give me the sound I was after. I own a Uke, Mandolin, Oud, and variety of other stringed instruments specifically for this reason. I have painstakingly taught myself to play at least at a 4th grader level simply because when I add a layer of the real thing to my tracks it makes a huge difference (regardless how sloppily I play it). If it didn't, I wouldn't do it...it would make no sense!


So to me, this shows that samples of stringed instruments are still not satisfactory. Now, if I didn't have access to the real instruments, the time to learn the basics, and some decent mics to record them with, I would probably try to do with samples and convince myself that the difference is negligible (or that if Troels could just be convinced to sample some of this stuff it would sound great).

With instruments that I can't play and have no access to, I tend to be ok with the samples, but nowadays I rarely write a cue that doesn't involve some sort of live instrument in there somewhere just to be able to offset the samples sterility with some organic quality.

Lastly, there are instruments that are inherently less expressive and articulate than others and which lend themselves better to achieving satisfactory results. I think percussion instruments are generally easier to deal with, bass guitar (although even that depends), flute and some of the other woodwinds, horns and brass. I also think that those instruments generally play in standardized ways compared to a guitar which can vary from Hendrix to Segovia.

Ultimately people will do what they do, and convince themselves that their way is right and the other way is wrong. And hence we go back to the whole subjectivity issue which has created a 4 page thread out of absolutely nothing.


----------



## lux (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm with Patrick here, as a stringed instruments player i really see an enormous difference between live played and programmed stuff, no matter how many roundrobins or legato samples you have.Of course everything is related to the kind of manouvres the instrument is called to make.

I believe is not a matter of how fake is the result with sampled stuff, sometimes you cant hear it as fake. But its a matter of what you could potentially do on a certain part and you wont. A live played stringed instrument is capable of offering nuances and movements you have no idea you can place in your song when using samples. So you just miss that aspect and you arent aware youre missing it.

I stopped using any stringed more than one year ago, i play only live bass and guitar and simply there's no comparison between pieces before and after that moment. Really no comparison.


----------



## Ed (Feb 11, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> the problem is that we can't see the future, but only look to the past for answers,



Well that's not true. 

If sampling multiple round robins hitting a snare sound good then I can logically assume that sampling multiple round robins hitting a marimba will probably sound good. 



> and right now repeated attempts to capture satisfactory emulation of strums in existing libraries has come up short. Pettinhouse is inching ever so close and I commend Andrea on his efforts, but as I thought I shown on my examples above,



Well you *are *a guitarist. What do you think about VSL?

Lets pick on specific instruments from VSL. Lets take the solo violin: This is clearly not satisfactory because it doesn't sound exactly like a real one. How about a clarinet? A real clarinet sounds so much better, therefore the VSL clarinet is not satisfactory. 

A real clarinetist, violinist, guitar player etc will always be especially critical of their chosen instrument being sampled. 

As I said before that apparently none of you arguing with me actually read:

*We do not choose to buy or develop sample libraries based on if it can 100% replicate a live player's every nuance. 
*



> (to me) the sampled guitar by itself sounded somewhat sterile and adding the real thing on top was necessary to give me the sound I was after.



And yet it...

1. Sounded better than if it hadn't been created at all and you had to put up with "phrases" and guitar samples with no round robins. 

2. If you didn't have a guitar yourself, the end result would have sounded even worse.





> I own a Uke, Mandolin, Oud, and variety of other stringed instruments specifically for this reason. I have painstakingly taught myself to play at least at a 4th grader level simply because when I add a layer of the real thing to my tracks it makes a huge difference (regardless how sloppily I play it).



That's great, and I'm sure Herman who own's lots of ethnic woodwinds would be very critical of ethnic wood libraries coming out. 

So what?

This has never been a reason to make or buy a sample library. Its to make life easier and make your music sound better if you don't have access to a live player for your music for whatever reason. 



> So to me, this shows that samples of stringed instruments are still not satisfactory.



I agree, but a woodwind player would easily say the same thing about woodwind samples, but when people suggest there is a way to make woodwinds samples sound better you don't end up telling them its impossible or they need not bother because a real instrument does so much more, do you? Same deal here.


----------



## midphase (Feb 11, 2010)

"As I said before that apparently none of you arguing with me actually read: 

We do not choose to buy or develop sample libraries based on if it can 100% replicate a live player's every nuance. "


Ed,

You're the one who is not reading. Nobody is talking about 100% replication, we're just talking about satisfactory emulations. 

The VSL clarinet is more satisfactory than any of the ethnic stringed instruments out there, but realistically speaking if I had no choice I would just use the samples and be done with it.

Nobody is implying that one shouldn't compose unless he's got access to the real deal.

But you asked if it'd be possible to arrive at a satisfactory emulation with samples of that TN instrument, and I say no...or at least not yet...or at least nothing I've heard up to this point is making me think that it's doable with just samples and scripting.

But we obviously have different standards, and to you the answer is a firm yes...if someone would just go through the trouble of doing it.

It's all a very moot point and quite honestly I'm not even sure what we're discussing here.

All I know is that if I have the option, I'll use the real deal, but since in 90% of the cases that's not an option, I live with the samples knowing full well than my tracks don't stand up to those of guys who use the real deal and that inherently puts me at a disadvantage. 

What I would like to express in this thread, if nothing else, is that the option to record the real deal might be more affordable and achievable than most around here seem to think. A Rogue mandolin is about $50 (less than a sample library library), learning to pluck a few basic chords on it takes about a day if that...YouTube videos make it faster than ever to learn to play. An "ok" Audio Technica AT2020 is $100 at GC. So for a total of $150 and about a day's work you get to have the real deal. Hiring even a single violinist or cellist for about $100/hour for a couple of hours will impart your string samples a realism that TJ can only dream about.

I know I'm digressing here, and Ed doesn't need to remind me that this is not what this discussion is about....but I thought it was important to say it nonetheless.


PS.

For the record...I am not a guitar player, my main instrument is piano, but I got sick and tired of having lame sounding guitar parts about 10 years ago so I rolled up my sleeves and bought a Telecaster (and then hired some real guitarists).


----------



## Ed (Feb 11, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> You're the one who is not reading. Nobody is talking about 100% replication, we're just talking about satisfactory emulations.



Then why do all of you guys saying that start arguing that a real instrument can do so much more? We already know that and its what 100% of all Asher's arguments amount to. 

He wasn't even arguing just that a live instrument is better, but that a GOOD LIVE PLAYER is what he called "satisfactory". He literally defined it that way. So unless a sample can not only sound as good as a live instrument, but also a live instrument played by a good player then he doesn't define that as satisfactory, which means his definition is practically meaningless.



> The VSL clarinet is more satisfactory than any of the ethnic stringed instruments out there, but realistically speaking if I had no choice I would just use the samples and be done with it.



But you are not a clarinetist are you?

Thomas Newman uses flute and clarinet in his music, think back before you had VSL. If I suggested they could create a more realistic sample of a flute to more satisfactorily emulate that sound, you would not start arguing that Newman's sound comes from good musicians and the fact that a live instrument can do so much more. Yes, we already know all that and VSL knew it as well. But they decided they could more satisfactorily emulate a legato instrument by using a different technique. I am just saying the same thing they did except what I'm saying doesn't require any leaps in technology with an unproven concept of interval sampling.

You are just less sensitive to VSL's sampled clarinet because you are not a clarinetist that knows exactly where its lacking.



> Nobody is implying that one shouldn't compose unless he's got access to the real deal.



Actually I was specifically told I should just go out an get a real player when I was just suggesting something like this could be sampled better. Which is basically telling me no one should bother making such a sample library. 



> All I know is that if I have the option, I'll use the real deal, but since in 90% of the cases that's not an option, I live with the samples knowing full well than my tracks don't stand up to those of guys who use the real deal and that inherently puts me at a disadvantage.



Again, what does this have to do with anything Midphase?

This is completely 100% irrelevant to samples in every way whatsoever.



> I know I'm digressing here, and Ed doesn't need to remind me that this is not what this discussion is about....but I thought it was important to say it nonetheless.



Maybe you and the others could have said that back when they were replying to me and not quoted my posts acting like I was wrong because of what they were saying and we could have avoided a lot of conflict.



> For the record...I am not a guitar player, my main instrument is piano, but I got sick and tired of having lame sounding guitar parts about 10 years ago so I rolled up my sleeves and bought a Telecaster (and then hired some real guitarists).



You play guitar, you have a selection of guitars. That makes you a guitar player and familiar with the instrument well enough to be very critical of sample libraries that deal with guitar or guitar-like instruments.


----------



## midphase (Feb 11, 2010)

Ed, I think the problem came into play when you had to bring up that damn TN example which threw this whole discussion off on a tangent.

All you really needed to say was:

"I wish there was an ethnic strummed instrument library sampled using the same techniques as the Pettinhouse Guitar...will someone please do that? (Troels...Andrea...anyone?)"

That's it!

Then the discussion would have had a more logical turn into the "Because it don't make financial sense" category.

You keep harping about whether it's possible or not....and I keep saying that it's all subjective and up to your personal standards of realism and your personal demands of your music. Go back and read some of the DVZ posts...there are some guys who thought it sounded fantastic and ultra-realistic and some who thought it was a POS. Same thing applies here....it's got nothing to do with samples vs. real players and everything to do with your personal idea of acceptable and mine. Should developers keep trying to make a better mouse trap? Of course! Nobody is even remotely implying that they should stop. Will they get closer to reaching something that even the picky bitches will find acceptable....who knows? 

This kinda relates to the Avatar discussion, some people feel it's an amazing technical achievement, and some think is a fake-ass POS film. Either way the point is that everyone has a different standard and POW of what is acceptable and what is not.

You seem to want to generalize your point towards a lower common denominator, by saying that VSL Clarinets are perfectly acceptable in realism to a non-wind player. Aside from the fact that a clarinet is not as complex to capture as a stringed instrument (articulation-wise), even that point is rendered moot by the fact that some of us (non wind players) still feel that the VSL clarinet is a pretty sorry excuse for a clarinet.

A while back I uploaded this to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDntrVpCh8E

Listen to it and tell me that it's not as fucking unbelievably hard to sample as a violin or cello.

Because it's so difficult...does that mean that nobody should attempt it? Absolutely not, I hope Nick or others give it a shot. But in the meantime, and until it's proven to me that I can coax this type of performance from samples, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 11, 2010)

Love Moo 2 U Part 1. Gonna tackle part 2 later.


----------



## midphase (Feb 11, 2010)

Thank you...it's the pride and joy of my professional career.


----------



## Ed (Feb 11, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> Ed, I think the problem came into play when you had to bring up that damn TN example which threw this whole discussion off on a tangent.



That is what this thread is *about*, don't you remember?

So obviously I was going to point to the Rain Hammers thing, a Newman score, and say that I think something like this could be sampled to sound quite a bit like it.



> All you really needed to say was:
> 
> "I wish there was an ethnic strummed instrument library sampled using the same techniques as the Pettinhouse Guitar...will someone please do that? (Troels...Andrea...anyone?)"
> 
> That's it!



Then you'd tell me it was impossible the instrument is just too complex and I would have to go out and get a real one, which is exactly what I was told don't you remember?



> Then the discussion would have had a more logical turn into the "Because it don't make financial sense" category.



When did anyone make that argument? :? 

It would be wrong anyway, people spend ages sampling stuff, programming scripts, VI engines etc.




> You keep harping about whether it's possible or not....and I keep saying that it's all subjective and up to your personal standards of realism and your personal demands of your music.



Is it possible to come up with a sample that can more successfully emulate what you hear in Rain Hammers than what we have now?

Is it possible to come up with a sample that can perfectly replicate a Mandolin or Saz the way Newman uses them? 

If you can't see the difference then I don't know what to tell you.



> Go back and read some of the DVZ posts...there are some guys who thought it sounded fantastic and ultra-realistic and some who thought it was a POS. Same thing applies here....



And some don't like VSL legato samples because it doesn't work properly since real legato sounds so much better and VSL's sounds weird by comparison to the real instrument.

So?

VSL's legato techniques still enabled us to *more successfully emulate* the sound of that instrument and allowed us to *more successfully emulate* more playing styles than we could do before.




> it's got nothing to do with samples vs. real players




Then why in gods name do you think it was brought up over and over? 

Why was that 100% of Ashers arguments and you haven't criticised him attacking a strawman once?




> You seem to want to generalize your point towards a lower common denominator, by saying that VSL Clarinets are perfectly acceptable in realism to a non-wind player. Aside from the fact that a clarinet is not as complex to capture as a stringed instrument (articulation-wise), even that point is rendered moot by the fact that some of us (non wind players) still feel that the VSL clarinet is a pretty sorry excuse for a clarinet.



Every single post you seem to miss the point. I know full well that VSL clarinet isn't as good as a live clarinet, but compared to the sampled version before it (non-interval sampling) the result was much *less *"successful" an emulation of a real clarinet.

Unlike Asher who demands "successful" be defined as a perfect emulation of the live instrument being played by a good player, I am simply looking at it as what sounds better than before. Before we sampled lots of round robins someone realised that if you could do so then you could *more successfully emulate* a more realistic and less machine-like performance. 

Likewise I know that with slight changes to whatever technique Pettinhouse used with his guitar strumming patch I know you could get a much *more successfully emulated* performance a lot more similar to the bit in Rain Hammers. You said we can't do it with our current technology, but you have not given one example as to what would be needed. I gave you an example of what I would want you to say: VSL flute, before interval sampling you could say that to get a more realistic legato flute you'd have to find a way of sampling in-between notes. So what about this? What technological advancement would you need to overcome that the Pettinhouse technique just doesn't have?



> A while back I uploaded this to YouTube:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDntrVpCh8E
> 
> Listen to it and tell me that it's not as [email protected]#king unbelievably hard to sample as a violin or cello.



I think I could find violin and cello examples that will sound more obviously fake if you tried it with samples even in theory, than this sample. But lets imagine you posted something truly difficult.

Again, so what? Why do you think this matter? 

This is exactly like telling me recording round robins on a snare probably won't work because it can't do all of the stuff a real percussionist can do with a snare. Well, no obviously not but it will allow you to *more successfully emulate* a lot more playing styles with a snare than you could before. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp here.

I'll also point out you can *more successfully emulate* a snare than a violin with samples, the same goes for the articulations of the instruments themselves. Its easier to get a more successful emulation of a string staccato performance than a good legato sound. 



> But in the meantime, and until it's proven to me that I can coax this type of performance from samples, I'm not holding my breath.



So there you go again, unless it sounds exactly like a great performance by a live player with real instrument you say it doesn't count as successful. I also bet you'll just go ahead and deny you just said it again


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 11, 2010)

Heh, I bet whoever taught Ed the term "strawman" is really kicking themselves now!

You know what I wish someone would sample is Electric Cello. I've always wondered if devs just don't follow trends or it's just to hard to sample but something is up. Yeah I know EW has one but it's yucky.


----------



## midphase (Feb 11, 2010)

"So what about this? What technological advancement would you need to overcome that the Pettinhouse technique just doesn't have? "

I already said it'll probably need to be a hybrid of Physical modeling and Sampling. Logic Pro's Structure scratches the surface of this...if you haven't played it...get your hands on it and check it out...pretty awesome code.

"So there you go again, unless it sounds exactly like a great performance by a live player with real instrument you say it doesn't count as successful. I also bet you'll just go ahead and deny you just said it again"

You're putting words into my mouth, stop doing that and start reading my posts instead of getting upset that I'm not understanding yours. I never said exactly, I said this type....huge difference. What you don't seem to understand is that what you find to be a closer approximation of an instrument (VSL Flute Legatos) I find to be a less irritating compromise. Does legato (or scripting) create a better mouse trap? Sure, but it's a bit like saying that a canoe is closer to a cruise liner than a log.

Of course I think the Pettinhouse guitar is infinitely more realistic than say the M1 acoustic guitar, and that's the way it should be after 20 years of technological advancement. But from a non-purist, non-picky composer POW, I think it's still not close enough and I wouldn't rely on it exclusively myself (but I think as an enhancement it's just fine).

You're saying that with enough round robins, scripting, and on and on it would be possible to create the type of sample library that allows someone to program a track "similarly" to the TN one and get closer to that effect than we can do with say Gipsy or RA. Sure, you'll get closer and better, but at some point I believe you'll reach a plateau that sampling can't overcome and that's where someone who's way smarter than me will need to figure out a solution which could quite possibly involve physical modeling or some sort of IR which actually affects performance and overtone interaction...I dunno. 

We're being proven time and time again that what was once thought of impossible is now possible...look at the Melodyne stuff...it's like magic! But until someone does it, it's extremely difficult to extrapolate with any certainty if it's doable or not.


----------



## Ed (Feb 11, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> "So what about this? What technological advancement would you need to overcome that the Pettinhouse technique just doesn't have? "
> 
> I already said it'll probably need to be a hybrid of Physical modeling and Sampling. Logic Pro's Structure scratches the surface of this...if you haven't played it...get your hands on it and check it out...pretty awesome code.



I know you said that but you didn't say why.

I could say the same thing pre-VSL for ALL INSTRUMENTS but the answer to how we could get a more successful emulation of a flute is to find some way to sample the connections between notes. 

The argument is not either physical modelling or nothing. Try again. 

Why would not recording things looser with more detail not work to create a more successful emulation of what we're talking about?

*Remember: *a "more successful emulation" does not = "perfect emulation of a live instrument".



> You're putting words into my mouth,



I knew you'd do this.

You had just given me a live example of what you consider to be something very difficult for samples to ever be able to accomplish. 

Then you said that "_until it's proven to me that I can coax this type of performance from samples, I'm not holding my breath"
_
Which means its not going to be good enough for you until it sounds just like this type of performance. Otherwise, why tell me this?



> I never said exactly, I said this type....huge difference.



This "type" of performance that you said is "[email protected]#king unbelievably hard to sample". 

But you aren't saying no one should attempt it, you just say that unless they can get this kind of performance out of it it won't be good enough for you so you wont class that as successful. That *is *what we're talking about so otherwise why are you telling me this?



> What you don't seem to understand is that what you find to be a closer approximation of an instrument (VSL Flute Legatos) I find to be a less irritating compromise.



Because you're not a flute player.

We can play lots of things quite successfully (_or if you dislike that word try "acceptably"_)with sampled flutes now, but theres still a LONG way to go and there's things a real flute can do that sampled flute still can't do at all and sound good. 

You don't notice this so much because you aren't as familiar with the instrument and secondly because sampled flute has been sampled in greater depth than ethnic guitar.



> Does legato (or scripting) create a better mouse trap? Sure, but it's a bit like saying that a canoe is closer to a cruise liner than a log.




Weird overly confusing comparison.

Does legato or scripting help you perform flute performances better than a sample without those techniques? Yes, it does. 



> Of course I think the Pettinhouse guitar is infinitely more realistic than say the M1 acoustic guitar, and that's the way it should be after 20 years of technological advancement. But from a non-purist, non-picky composer POW, I think it's still not close enough and I wouldn't rely on it exclusively myself (but I think as an enhancement it's just fine).



What you seem to miss is I'm not saying Pettinhouse is perfect I'm saying the technique is already there, there no reason you couldn't apply that to an ethnic sample and loosen it up a bit and sample even more detail.

Hell, compared to what sample producers have done so far what I'm suggesting is very straight forward!



> You're saying that with enough round robins, scripting, and on and on it would be possible to create the type of sample library that allows someone to program a track "similarly" to the TN one and get closer to that effect than we can do with say Gipsy or RA.



Yup.



> Sure, you'll get closer and better, but at some point I believe you'll reach a plateau that sampling can't overcome and that's where someone who's way smarter than me will need to figure out a solution which could quite possibly involve physical modeling or some sort of IR which actually affects performance and overtone interaction...I dunno.



I know! Why are you telling me things I already agree with! Why do you insist in arguing against an argument I never made! I already agree with this! :roll: 

I have been referring to the "better and better" part in case you didn't realise. I'm talking about what we can do do get better and better or closer and closer. So unless you think we've reached that "plateau" already then this is completely irrelevant.



> We're being proven time and time again that what was once thought of impossible is now possible...look at the Melodyne stuff...it's like magic! But until someone does it, it's extremely difficult to extrapolate with any certainty if it's doable or not.



I tried Melodyne DNA, its not as good as you might think. 

But lets assume you're just using this as an example, why use an example of something that is so far out there and theoretical? Why can't you use an example that is actually relevant? Why does it have to be so extreme? 

VSL would be a better comparison except with VSL, as I already said to you before, that still relied on an unproven interval sampling concept and required programming that still needed to be made to stitch it all together. Nothing I am suggesting requires any such leap at all.


----------



## midphase (Feb 11, 2010)

"I know you said that but you didn't say why. "

Yes I did, I explained that there is some sort of harmonic/overtone interaction on a strummed instrument of that sort that definitely impacts the resulting sound. I just don't think the static world of sampling can overcome that limitation (maybe trick the ear? I don't know, but I haven't heard it yet). The closest thing we have seen that kindasorta deals with that is that modeled Horns app, and maybe Synful Orchestra?

Either way there are compromises.

Personally, an easier and more readily available method is to record a bunch of phrases at different tempos and keys with different rhythms, and then utilize Kontakt's Time Machine to extrapolate all the tempos in between. This would also overcome the challenge of playing the chords in from a keyboard with the accurate voicings. It would be a relatively simple project for a developer who wants to step up to the plate.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 11, 2010)

Ed @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> [



Then why do all of you guys saying that start arguing that a real instrument can do so much more? We already know that and its what 100% of all Asher's arguments amount to. 

He wasn't even arguing just that a live instrument is better, but that a GOOD LIVE PLAYER is what he called "satisfactory". He literally defined it that way. So unless a sample can not only sound as good as a live instrument, but also a live instrument played by a good player then he doesn't define that as satisfactory, which means his definition is practically meaningless.
[[/quote]

Oh, Good Lord, you really are dumber than squirrels. I guess you missed where I wrote: "No one here has argued that we cannot make them sound satisfactory."

"Satisfactory" is a low bar and what is required to achieve it is dependent on one's standards. Yours are probably lower than Newman's because he is used to better.

I can what is to my mind a "satisfactory" job emulating a string section. But a real string section comprised of good players is so much more than that. Perhaps it is possible, depending on one's standards, to do a "satisfactory" job of emulating that Newman mandolin, but not to Kay's standards and obviously not to Newman's. If it is to yours, then your standards are lower and that is fine for you.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 11, 2010)

> But you are not a clarinetist are you?
> 
> Thomas Newman uses flute and clarinet in his music, think back before you had VSL. If I suggested they could create a more realistic sample of a flute to more satisfactorily emulate that sound, you would not start arguing that Newman's sound comes from good musicians and the fact that a live instrument can do so much more. Yes, we already know all that and VSL knew it as well. But they decided they could more satisfactorily emulate a legato instrument by using a different technique. I am just saying the same thing they did except what I'm saying doesn't require any leaps in technology with an unproven concept of interval sampling.
> 
> You are just less sensitive to VSL's sampled clarinet because you are not a clarinetist that knows exactly where its lacking.



I am, and I can say the VSL clarinet in an orchestral (not upfront) setting is really, really close to the real thing, because all the nuances are not heard as much. As it stands you can hear the key clicks in that instrument. It only becomes fake sounding with the arts. But legato is damn near close to the real thing in an orchestral setting.

As far as stringed (plucked) instruments go, it also boils down to the mix. If the piece is involved, it's going to be hard to tell. That example Ed posted causes me to think some of those were sampled. If the song has those instruments in the back, you are going to hear any of the special nuances that tell you it's sampled.

I do believe Ed's point was to just make a better plucked string lib with more round robins. I don't see a problem with that. I do believe there would be highly convincing results.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 11, 2010)

I've missed you, Jay. I'm looking forward to the next time you storm out of here again.  

I think part of the problem is that there's a big gap between where some of us are compared to others. Some are sitting at Fox scoring stage and some are in a bedroom in Yonkers, and most are in between. One guy's idea of A level is C- level to another guy. I'm consistently trying to raise my standards to get to the next level. 

I once did an install at Prince's house. My apartment had never looked as small as it did when I got home that night. Some of us have had the musical equivalent of that, where the samples that once sounded amazing suddenly sound barely-acceptable. 

One of the questions in this thread, where it comes to the mandolin in particular is, "which is better, a bad live player or a great sample?" But there aren't many times when I replace a sample with a player and then go back to the sample. The sample is almost never better.


----------



## Ed (Feb 11, 2010)

synthetic @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> One of the questions in this thread, where it comes to the mandolin in particular is, "which is better, a bad live player or a great sample?" But there aren't many times when I replace a sample with a player and then go back to the sample. The sample is almost never better.



No one actually asked that question, but that would be a good discussion somewhere else since sometimes samples are preferable to a bad live performance and/or recording.

The question people were posing to me was, _"is a sample better than a live player?" _which of course is no, something no one denied but they felt they wanted to pretend I was saying anyway.


----------



## Ed (Feb 11, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> I am, and I can say the VSL clarinet in an orchestral (not upfront) setting is really, really close to the real thing, because all the nuances are not heard as much. As it stands you can hear the key clicks in that instrument. It only becomes fake sounding with the arts. But legato is damn near close to the real thing in an orchestral setting.



I know you are technically agreeing with me but just to be clear....
*
As I said before *VSL's clarinet is pretty decent for a lot of playing styles *precisely *because* it has been sampled rather deeply*.

If they had provided only one kind of legato articulation, a sustain and a stacc sample with 3 round robins suddenly its not so great anymore. It could still perform well if you "asked" it to do certain things, but much less would sound good and it would struggle with more complex things. If you don't provide round robins this decreases even further, with no legato it really decreases the amount of stuff you can do well with it. 

Broadway Big Band improved on VSL's technique instead of saying that only physical modelling can get any better. 

Now, with what I'm suggesting, we haven't done much yet to sample ethnic instruments in the way I'm talking about. There's lots you could do to make things sound better with current technology we have right now, nothing fancy needed at all. That example I provided with Rain Hammers would be relatively straight forward, it couldn't do everything a real instrument could do, but then a real flute playing the same line would sound better than VSL flute playing the same thing, but that fact just doesn't matter.

People on this thread also claimed you couldn't get closer to Newmans "sound" with a sample, which is wrong as well since with VSL legato we can get a nicer solo instrument to emulate his compared to non-legato instruments.



> That example Ed posted causes me to think some of those were sampled. If the song has those instruments in the back, you are going to hear any of the special nuances that tell you it's sampled.



I dont think the part in question was sampled. That strummy mandolin sound. This track however is mostly sampled for sure. Prosonus Staccs baby! (and yes they are, I have this library, he uses it often)






> I do believe Ed's point was to just make a better plucked string lib with more round robins. I don't see a problem with that. I do believe there would be highly convincing results.



Exactly what I've been saying the entire thread from the very beginning in exactly this way.

Sorry just had to bold your post because others here apparently think I'm so very wrong in this. 

Thanks


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 11, 2010)

Ed @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> synthetic @ Thu Feb 11 said:
> 
> 
> > One of the questions in this thread, where it comes to the mandolin in particular is, "which is better, a bad live player or a great sample?" But there aren't many times when I replace a sample with a player and then go back to the sample. The sample is almost never better.
> ...



People keep saying that live players are better, but what constitutes as better? There's so many factors in the entertainment industry other than just how good they play. Specifically time and money. Can't say much for film scores but I know of some cases in the record industry where samples were used over live players just because 1. It was a last minute idea 2. It was faster, cheaper, and already fit in the mix really well.

I know that isn't the point of this thread, but I've seen that "live is better than samples" a lot.


----------



## Ed (Feb 11, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> People keep saying that live players are better, but what constitutes as better? There's so many factors in the entertainment industry other than just how good they play. Specifically time and money. Can't say much for film scores but I know of some cases in the record industry where samples were used over live players just because 1. It was a last minute idea 2. It was faster, cheaper, and already fit in the mix really well.
> 
> I know that isn't the point of this thread, but I've seen that "live is better than samples" a lot.



Sometimes samples are also used for stylistic purposes or practical purposes (_if they want the instrument to do something hard to play or unconventional that ends up sounding better sampled_). Hans Zimmer does it, Thomas Newman does it, etc. They don't have to use samples but they do it because they want that sound. Sometimes even big budget films run out of time or sometimes the performance is flawed to the point where the sampled version is more preferable. 

The reason people here are claiming live is better on this thread is based on the false assumption that I am saying that you can create an ethnic guitar sample library that can do everything you hear in Newman's scores. Thats why you have Midphase saying you need physical modelling to do it.


----------



## booboo (Feb 11, 2010)

Just read the original post.

Best. Thread. Ever.


----------



## Ed (Feb 11, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> Oh, Good Lord, you really are dumber than squirrels. I guess you missed where I wrote: "No one here has argued that we cannot make them sound satisfactory."



I didn't mean to write satisfactory, I meant to write the word "successfully" here. Though I realise than this typo slip-up has helped you to try and back pedal.



> "Satisfactory" is a low bar and what is required to achieve it is dependent on one's standards. Yours are probably lower than Newman's because he is used to better.



You told me what you considered successful: 

_"The key word is "successfully." Are we talking aesthetically or commercially? As Kays has said, what is "successful' to you may not be to him or me. "
_
You then started explaining to me that to have a "successful" emulation of live instrument means it has to sound every bit as good as a live instrument being played by a good player.

_"I cannot "successfully" emulate with samples to the point where I can say "this sounds every bit as good as a good orchestra. Nor can you."_



> I can what is to my mind a "satisfactory" job emulating a string section. But a real string section comprised of good players is so much more than that. Perhaps it is possible, depending on one's standards, to do a "satisfactory" job of emulating that Newman mandolin, but not to Kay's standards



Then we shouldn't create it at all, right? 

In the same way as we shouldn't have bothered with VSL, correct? VSL wasn't as indepth at the start, was it? Yet even if it had only given you just one kind of legato it would still have meant it can successfully play certain specific passages better than previous non-legato samples could, isn't that true?



> and *obviously not to Newman's.*



Is LASS a "successful" library Asher?

I don't think Newman is going to use it any time soon instead of a real string section either, so I guess that makes it unsuccessful and Andrew should not have bothered.

What kind of logic do you use? :lol: 

And FYI Newman does use a lot of samples. He has sampled percussion, sampled string staccs and pizz, and I hear sampled harp as well. 



> If it is to yours, then your standards are lower and that is fine for you.



I love the arrogant personal attacks that have no basis in reality.

Read the OP, all he wanted was a nice usable sample that could get him this sound. He didn't need something that was going to give him the equivalent of a great performance of a live instrument. However Newman records his piano everyone loves is pretty unique, but the Malmsjo does a damn good job in sounding like it. Should we not bother with it? After all its only about 4 layers and no round robins. Yet, it can still get you closer to the Newman sound.

The reason I think you don't understand what I'm saying Asher, is that you seriously do not understand the concept of samples even though you may use them everyday. You just don't understand them.

I mean why bother with Trilogy and its acoustic and electric bases? Why did they spend *so much time * and effort recording them when you can just get a live player like people were suggesting to do here? This must utterly confound you! All the effort going into such a library, then all the subsequent praise for it! 
*
When you understand why Spectrasonics did it, why people want it and like it, you'll understand what I'm saying about this ethnic guitar.*


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 11, 2010)

And to think all of these words are written _without any payment rendered for them_.

And, just a guess here, but...no music was written during all the typing!


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 11, 2010)

I will make one final attempt to clarify my position for you Ed.

"Successful" and "satisfactory" are both subjective terms that mean different things to different composers. And there are different ways something can be deemed successful.

If I use samples because of economic necessity, then my expectations of what I will consider "successful" must be different then if I have a budget where I can choose to use live players or samples. If it works with the picture and the client is happy, it is "successful" within those limited guidelines but artistically, it will only be partially successful TO ME because I will know what its potential would be with the real thing.

LASS is a very good sounding string library and certainly successful. Nonetheless, the string section of i.e the BSO on its worst day will still always produce a version of the piece that is considerably more successful artistically than any version of the piece performed with LASS. And btw, Andrew will also tell you that, because Andrew knows what real players are capable of.

Once again, samples have their place for all the reasons I have listed and you have listed. No one denies it. Whether they can "successfully" accomplish a specific task depends on the nature of the task, the judgment of the person making the judgment, and whether we are talking about artistic success or just accomplishing the task in a "satisfactory" manner. For me, most times samples can accomplish a task in a matter that will be "satisfactory" given reasonable expectations of what samples can and cannot do, "successful" in that it will work with the picture and please the client, but still not be entirely artistically "successful" as it could be if the budget allowed for the use of the real guys.

Is that really so difficult to understand?


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 11, 2010)

synthetic @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> I've missed you, Jay. I'm looking forward to the next time you storm out of here again.



Nah. When you're talking out of your ass, as you usually do, I will simply say so and quietly exit. :lol:


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 11, 2010)

Ommmmmmmmmmmm....

Ommmmmmmmmmmmm....

raaaaaaaaaaaange..............


----------



## synthetic (Feb 11, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> synthetic @ Thu Feb 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I've missed you, Jay. I'm looking forward to the next time you storm out of here again.
> ...



So much for peace offerings. Ass--


----------



## midphase (Feb 11, 2010)

"When you understand why Spectrasonics did it, why people want it and like it, you'll understand what I'm saying about this ethnic guitar."

Ed, ok fine...but are you planning on creating this library? Are you planning on lobbying someone to create this library? Does this library exist? Do you want it to exist? Are you trying to convince yourself that you're right? If so what's the point? Are you trying to convince others? Are you trying to get others to agree with you being right? I don't get it.

This is just like the whole Silent Stage thread, you have an opinion, you stated it...so? What's the point? That you're smarter than everyone else? That you're the "I told you so" guy?

I mean seriously....what else could possibly be the point of this whole thread?


----------



## Damon (Feb 12, 2010)

Going back to the original thread, I know for a fact Thomas Newman has a dude that plays the Saz on some of his soundtracks, which is an ethnic sort of mandolin guitar from the sound of it (I guess). He featured it in 'American Beauty', 'Road to Perdition', and possibly that horrible Hollywood massacre 'Pay it Forward'.

'Ethno World 1' has that sample if you're looking for it, but it would be better to find a real mandolin guitar player and tweak his tone out for real strums. 'Ethno World 1' has a few loops and only individual notes of the Saz sample.

Hope that helps ya dude.


----------



## stevenson-again (Feb 12, 2010)

there is also a fantastic bowed russian zither i dug up somewhere on the internet. a freebie - i've used it a lot and bends nicely out of tune, both plucked and bowed.

i don't want to get embroiled in a debate that has kind of lost it's way, but it does throw up some interesting points.

i personally *have* recorded live stuff and gone back to samples where the samples were simply doing the job better. sometimes i use samples to support what was recorded even if what was recorded was fine. the point not to forget is that samples are recordings of live players, and sometimes the tone and definition is better than what was recorded at the time. sometimes, i don't even bother asking the band to play something that is too hard or boring, i either leave it out of the score entirely or mark the score as being optional. actually i have had my mock-ups of a cue replace the recorded cue, initially because i thought they had just gotten used to the mock-up, but actually it was because the mock-up had some magic all of its own that somehow worked better than the recorded version. it's a very rare thing to have happen though...

another point is: a mock-up of anything is your interpretation of your own music. that means a) you can get exactly the performance and nuance you want but b) you don't get to have the benefit of someone else's version that can add a layer of sophistication and interest.

a further point is; samples ain't samples. it is true certain instruments bear sampling better than others. but even then, something like a marimba which ostensibly should be easy to sample, can have fairy dust on it when recorded by a terrific player. they don't just bang the notes. and then at other times being able psycho-acoustically treat a sampled instrument means that the colour and texture you want can only be achieved with a sampled instrument. i had a friend recently record (at great expense in a low budget job) a live percussionist, who breathed life and groove into his tracks that he simply could not have achieved by trying to find the 'right' loops, or certainly not by trying to program them himself. conversely the opposite can also be true depending on the context.

this is because what we do here is a *recording art*. not a performance art. therefore, you approach the business a creating a work differently. you can play around with sound perspective and make abstract a live performance if you have one. you are both cooking the cake and writing the recipe.

there are even times when samples are too real and we do things to make them more 'fake', not because we want it to sound rubbish, but because we are trying to achieve a certain effect.

hans zimmer will go out of his way to use a sampled orchestra in order to achieve a certain effect, and whether you like that effect or not it has a legitimate goal in mind. and then michael giacchino will record 'the incredibles' with no over-dubbing at all, everything balanced in the room, because there is a feel and sound he wants to achieve by doing that. likewise, JW will try to record a few takes without click, because even a click-track is too mechanical and without life for him. and then on the other side howard shore, who won't let his players play with legato - effectively asking them to recreate his mock-up with no deviation from it at all.

from my point of view, 'samples' of any instrument is an instrument - a different instrument, and i am the interpreter. i don't view it as superior or inferior to a live band. i personally do feel, that live performance creates a randomness and nuance that is virtually impossible to achieve on your own. it's a bit like building a tree. yes i could get a trunk some branches and the leaves and stick them all together, but it's a bit easier and generally more satisfactory to grow one.


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

Holy shit...

I stop making music and barely come to the board for a year and a half, and when I come back for good the place has turned into some sort of crazy weird fuck-ass zoo. lol

It would seem (to my untrained eye) that some antipathy, I might even say animosity, has developed between a few members during that time. Am I wrong about this?

Really, this thread should have been over after half a page, max. All Ed is saying is that there may be ways to sample some instruments better than what is currently available. Seems like a fair assessment to me. Why this would lead to five pages of pointless bickering, with everyone repeating the same points over and over, while at the same time missing (maybe purposefully?) the other posters' points completely is.... well it's fascinating to be honest.

I'm really enjoying this. :mrgreen:


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 12, 2010)

all Ed is saying is 'I'll argue til the wolves can't sleep anymore, damnit'


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

synthetic @ 11/2/2010 said:


> One of the questions in this thread, where it comes to the mandolin in particular is, "which is better, a bad live player or a great sample?" But there aren't many times when I replace a sample with a player and then go back to the sample. The sample is almost never better.



Ah, screw it, this is too much fun. I'm gettin' in! :mrgreen: 

I actually had to replace entire recording sessions with sampled mockups a few times on short films, because the results of the live recordings were simply not acceptable. This actually happened as recently as last week.

Also, I've only done one feature-length film that used live musicians, and although nothing was replaced with samples, some cues just couldn't get in the picture because the interpretation was not good enough. They had to be replaced with cues that were meant for other scenes.

The reason for this has sometimes been that the musicians were simply not good enough, or they were pretty good but we didn't have enough studio time to put everything together correctly, or there was some technical difficutly that made it impossible to get a good performance. I once got some musicians that were rather mediocre but it could have been good enough to use (it was borderline though), but that time we got a sound engineer that wasn't so hot and the results "soundwise" were just not up to par. And of course, some of it was also from my lack of experience, when I sometimes overestimated the capabilities of the musicians, or underestimated the time required to have a proper reading.

In all these cases, samples ended up sounding better than live.

In order for a live recording to sound great, a lot of elements have to come together. You must have great musicians (even if the music is easy), a great studio, a great engineer, and enough time to put it all together. I think the guys working mainly in L.A. might take all those things a bit for granted, but we don't all have the same conditions on every project. The pool of awesome musicians over here is smaller, I'm still working on very low budget films so we can't afford the top-list musicians, and of course those budget constraints limit our studio time as well. Oh, and also for budget reasons, all those scores use chamber ensembles, and in a way it is more difficult to get proper intonation and timing (even with good players) when the ensemble is smaller. 

As my old composition teacher used to say (and still says): nothing beats a great orchestra, but if I have a bad or mediocre one, I'd rather hear samples. I kind of agree.


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

NYC Composer @ 12/2/2010 said:


> all Ed is saying is 'I'll argue til the wolves can't sleep anymore, damnit'



This seems to be what a lot of people are saying in this thread.


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

Ashermusic @ 10/2/2010 said:


> I cannot "successfully" emulate with samples to the point where I can say "this sounds every bit as good as a good orchestra. Nor can you. Nor can Guy Bacos. Nor can T. J. Nor can Colin.
> 
> I have never heard an orchestral piece re-created with samples that would not sound significantly better played by a good orchestra IMHO.



The one exception to this is Mojo Madness, at least the orchestral part. And even the choir, there's only the first entrance that doesn't sound quite convincing to me, but the rest is fine. But the orchestra part is just as good (and expressive) as a real one.

I remember when that came out, some people were trying to find faults in the mockup and said that there was a bit of "machine-gun" effect. However, I have recordings of real orchestras (both classical and soundtracks) which have repeated-note passages that sound quite a bit more machine-gun. Sometimes that's just how it sounds.

That's the only example that comes to mind though. I don't know what happened on that mockup, but I wish it could happen all the time on everyone's sampled simulations. Then composers could start talking about music again...


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 12, 2010)

synthetic @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Feb 11 said:
> 
> 
> > synthetic @ Thu Feb 11 said:
> ...



It was a joke, Jeff.


----------



## Ed (Feb 12, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Ed, ok fine...but are you planning on creating this library?



I'm saying this is basically straight forward to create with samples and it is, that is a fact. I don't have to be the one to sample it to see that. Its not even just me others have also accepted this could be done with samples once they've realised all your counter arguments have been based on something I never suggested.



> This is just like the whole Silent Stage thread, you have an opinion, you stated it...so? What's the point? That you're smarter than everyone else? That you're the "I told you so" guy?



Outside of the usual strawmen, people were stating factual inaccuracies in the Silent Stage thread as well, if you remember when Sovereign joined in and everyone left this might jog your memory.



> I mean seriously....what else could possibly be the point of this whole thread?



I said what the point of the thread was in the post you replied to and several times in various ways on this very page. If you still don't get it that's your problem I guess.


----------



## Ed (Feb 12, 2010)

nadeama @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Really, this thread should have been over after half a page, max. All Ed is saying is that there may be ways to sample some instruments better than what is currently available. Seems like a fair assessment to me. Why this would lead to five pages of pointless bickering, with everyone repeating the same points over and over, while at the same time missing (maybe purposefully?) the other posters' points completely is.... well it's fascinating to be honest.
> 
> I'm really enjoying this. :mrgreen:



hehe :D Yes I too am fascinated at just why people reacted to my suggestion the way they did. Going by people's responses you might think I had been suggesting something really stupid!


----------



## mf (Feb 12, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> Once again, samples have their place for all the reasons I have listed and you have listed. No one denies it. Whether they can "successfully" accomplish a specific task depends on the nature of the task, the judgment of the person making the judgment, and whether we are talking about artistic success or just accomplishing the task in a "satisfactory" manner. For me, most times samples can accomplish a task in a matter that will be "satisfactory" given reasonable expectations of what samples can and cannot do, "successful" in that it will work with the picture and please the client, but still not be entirely artistically "successful" as it could be if the budget allowed for the use of the real guys.


Loved it.

If I understand it correctly, whether a product is successful, satisfactory, or a failure, that depends exclusively on the EXPECTATIONS of the person making the judgment, and by no means on the intrinsic QUALITIES of the product itself. Example: give me a well crafted, expensive, and wonderfully detuned mandolin and let me play it to my cat rather than to Mr Newman. Now, if the poor thing doesn't run away in the next 15 seconds or so, that will make me a SUCCESSFUL detuned mandolin player. Right?


----------



## Ed (Feb 12, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Thu Feb 11 said:


> I will make one final attempt to clarify my position for you Ed.
> 
> "Successful" and "satisfactory" are both subjective terms that mean different things to different composers. And there are different ways something can be deemed successful.



And we know what "Successful" means to you, which is absolute perfection. Utterly meaningless in this discussion. 



> If I use samples because of economic necessity, then my expectations of what I will consider "successful" must be different then if I have a budget where I can choose to use live players or samples. If it works with the picture and the client is happy, it is "successful" within those limited guidelines but artistically, it will only be partially successful TO ME because I will know what its potential would be with the real thing.



This however is not the idea of successful that we're talking about:

To say that Trilogy's basses are a "*more successful emulation*" of a bass instrument is a fact. Does it still compete with a live instrument and a good player? Depends on what you're playing but the answer is no, it still isn't a perfect emulation of its live counterpart. That's because *that's not the point.*



> LASS is a very good sounding string library and certainly successful.



According to you unless Thomas Newman would use LASS over a real string section it is not successful. Unless you cant tell the difference between LASS and live performance by a good orchestra then it doesn't count as "successful" to you. You have already said this before. 




> Nonetheless, the string section of i.e the BSO on its worst day will still always produce a version of the piece that is considerably more successful artistically than any version of the piece performed with LASS. And btw, Andrew will also tell you that, because Andrew knows what real players are capable of.



Irrelevant. 

This discussion has nothing to do with real players being better than samples. Why you continue to try and argue this I have no idea.




> Once again, samples have their place for all the reasons I have listed and you have listed. No one denies it. Whether they can "successfully" accomplish a specific task depends on the nature of the task, the judgment of the person making the judgment, and whether we are talking about artistic success or just accomplishing the task in a "satisfactory" manner. For me, most times samples can accomplish a task in a matter that will be "satisfactory" given reasonable expectations of what samples can and cannot do, "successful" in that it will work with the picture and please the client, but still not be entirely artistically "successful" as it could be if the budget allowed for the use of the real guys.
> 
> Is that really so difficult to understand?



Wonderful, you prefer live players to samples.

I get it. 

Now what the hell does this have to do with saying that you can sample an ethnic guitar to create this playing style in Rain hammers in a way that will get you closer to that sound than we can do now?

Absolutely nothing. 

Do try and understand this Jay, we are talking about samples not live instruments. :roll: Do you understand why people use Trilogy? Do you understand why Spectrasonics spent so much time and effort sampling their acoustic and electric bases? Like I said before when you understand why *they *did it you'll understand what I'm talking about.


----------



## Ed (Feb 12, 2010)

nadeama @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> The one exception to this is Mojo Madness, at least the orchestral part. ..



Jay would not at all count Mojo in what he is talking about. 

Jay says that it has to sound exactly like a live instrument/orchestra being performance by a good player/orchestra.

He has also said that no matter how good the sample it will always sound better with a live player.

Hence, no matter how good TJ's stuff is, he won't accept it is as "successful".


----------



## mf (Feb 12, 2010)

Ed @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Do you understand why people use Trilogy? Do you understand why Spectrasonics spent so much time and effort sampling their acoustic and electric bases? Like I said before when you understand why *they *did it you'll understand what I'm talking about.


I understand you too: people use Trilogy because
they have no time/money/interest to hire a pro bass player, and 
they expect their Trilogy playing to sound better than their bass playing.

They are successful, Trilogy is successful, Eric Persing is successful - everybody's happy.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 12, 2010)

Ed @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> nadeama @ Fri Feb 12 said:
> 
> 
> > The one exception to this is Mojo Madness, at least the orchestral part. ..
> ...



Not what I said and you are either deliberately misrepresenting or just too dumb too understand.

I said, FOR ME, artistically, it is not 100% successful if it could be better realized by real players. 

Between 0% and 100 % is a wide swath.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 12, 2010)

nadeama @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Holy shit...
> 
> I stop making music and barely come to the board for a year and a half, and when I come back for good the place has turned into some sort of crazy weird fuck-ass zoo. lol
> 
> ...



Hey Martin! 

Great to see you back here in the midst of this King of Hearts insanity, its good to see there is someone else here with a sane perspective. Have things really gotten wilder here since the day of Donny Christian?

And the "weird fuck-ass zoo" seems to be more a reflection of the agitation and tension of our world in general rather than deranged minds on the forum - don't you think?

Stay well and enjoy the zoo, :mrgreen: 

Greg


----------



## midphase (Feb 12, 2010)

"But why then do you imagine they bothered sampling it? Do you know how difficult it was? Have you heard how much effort they put into sampling the Acoustic Bass sample? Why would they bother daring to suggest that if they tried sampling it more deeply with some other new techniques that they could get a more successfull emulation of a real bass? Why did they bother doing that and also why did anyone want to pay so much to buy such a thing when they could just go and geò’   Ä´’   Äµ’   Ä¶’   Ä·’   Ä¸’   Ä¹’   Äº’   Ä»’   Ä¼’   Ä½’   Ä¾’   Ä¿’   ÄÀ’   ÄÁ’   ÄÂ’   ÄÃ’


----------



## midphase (Feb 12, 2010)

"Irrelevant. 

We are talking about what is possible with samples. 

Whether there is a market for is it an entirely different matter. If it is not financially viable, if only 2 people want it, that doesn't mean its suddenly impossible to create, you do understand that right? If you do then why are you bringing it up?"

Dude, stop cherry-picking what I'm saying, it is all relevant since neither you nor I know what is possible with samples beyond what we have heard until now. It's all speculative and you don't know anything more factual than anyone else (except for the developers who have walked down that path).

What you don't seem to understand and continue to ignore is that this discussion has evolved in the same way that it evolved when you sidetracked it from being some guy asking if there's a library out there that could do the detuned mandolin thing. I don't really give a rat's ass about whatever point you're trying to make since it's completely speculative and irrelevant to reality. You're just arguing for the sake of argument while guys like myself, Jay and Patrick simply wanted to expand on the subject and widen the scope of the discussion. Since this is not Ed's VI Control forum, nor did you even start this thread, I don't see why you have to be so irritated when people feel the need to add their $.02 about the subject in general.

This might come as a surprise to you, but it's not always all about YOU. Grow up and learn to have an open discussion that stretches beyond your limited rationale.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 12, 2010)

> IMHO there's nothing in Trillian that sounds any better than Trilogy when it comes to realism.



Not sure if I agree with that.


----------



## midphase (Feb 12, 2010)

Well...good thing I prefaced it with the "IMHO" then!


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Feb 12, 2010)

I thought I was going to read about a detuned mandolin sample library thread, but instead I'm reading this.................

Welcome back Ashermusic....... yo Ed.....

If you guys spent the amount of time writing a new piece of music with the time spent posting whatever it is you are ranting about on this thread, you both would be way better off, IMO.

Get back to work!

Mr. A.


----------



## artsoundz (Feb 12, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Well...good thing I prefaced it with the "IMHO" then!



Midphase has a point. I am so glad Bass legends form way back was included. One of my favorite basses-the Pattituci Big Bertha bass that was lost on my system. But now I have this fantastic woody instrument back. AND more.


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

Ed @ 12/2/2010 said:


> hehe :D Yes I too am fascinated at just why people reacted to my suggestion the way they did. Going by people's responses you might think I had been suggesting something really stupid!



I've seen this many times. You'll notice that the posters who first took issue with your suggestion are people who play the same type of instrument that you proposed should be sampled. People just don't like the idea that the instrument they've practiced years and years to master, and to which they have an intimate relationship, might get replaced by samples on a gig. It's just hard to accept, and that's pretty natural and normal if you think about it. They will tell you that you can't get the same results with samples as with the real thing (which is completely true), but then the part where you say "I agree, but I think we could still get rather good results" gets totally blacked out in their mind, as some sort of weird subconscious mechanism seems to get in place in order to block the notion that you could at least get partially there. Then it becomes as if you were saying that the samples are just as good as the real thing, even though this may not be what you were saying at all. Again, I've seen this reaction many times over the years on various music forums.

Of course, there's also the fact that musicians generally have a better ear for their own instrument, and can detect subtleties that others can't.


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

You know what, I should start charging by the hour (which would really only be 50 minutes) for this shit. I could make a much better living than I do writing music. :wink:


----------



## midphase (Feb 12, 2010)

You're both missing the fact that nobody even suggested that a sample developer shouldn't continue to pursue developing a better detuned mandolin. Just because guys like myself and others felt the need to add in there some skepticism over sampling technology being able to overcome some of the challenges of sampling a particular instrument it doesn't mean one should stop trying.

If Ed's whole point was to suggest that a detuned mandolin library which uses round robin and a multitude of samples is better than one which doesn't goes without saying and should be followed by a "duh."

If Ed's point was to suggest that a better sampled detuned mandolin would be good enough for most, that point definitely got lost in translation.

I think the problem is that Ed interpreted a simple case of providing some additional talking points and information as a challenge to him personally, and that is completely false.


----------



## SvK (Feb 12, 2010)

yo...come over here, unzip me, and take a bite of my detuned mandolin!!!


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

Ed @ 12/2/2010 said:


> Jay would not at all count Mojo in what he is talking about.
> 
> Jay says that it has to sound exactly like a live instrument/orchestra being performance by a good player/orchestra.



Yes, but my point was that Mojo Madness does sound exactly like a live recording (except maybe that one choir entrance which is too abrupt, but then I'm sure you could find live recordings with similar-sounding things).

I remember the posts back when that VI magazine issue came out. People were wondering whether it was live or not (the only reason for thinking it was perhaps not live being that it was done for VI Magazine). When TJ said it was all samples, *then* posters started saying they were hearing this or that which might be giving it away. There's not doubt in my mind that if he had said it's all live, people would have said "yeah, I knew this couldn't be samples".

It's a bit like what I described earlier, musicians subconsciously don't want to admit that they could be fooled. I guess it makes them feel insecure that maybe they don't have a good enough ear or something.

But then, Mojo Madness is an exception. I've never heard any other mockups that had that level or realism, even other works by TJ. I don't know what he did on that one, but it was winner. o-[][]-o 

Dr. Nadeama


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

SvK @ 12/2/2010 said:


> yo...come over here, unzip me, and take a bite of my detuned mandolin!!!



If only I were a woman... or gay...
:lol:


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

midphase @ 12/2/2010 said:


> If Ed's whole point was to suggest that a detuned mandolin library which uses round robin and a multitude of samples is better than one which doesn't goes without saying and should be followed by a "duh."
> 
> If Ed's point was to suggest that a better sampled detuned mandolin would be good enough for most, that point definitely got lost in translation.
> 
> I think the problem is that Ed interpreted a simple case of providing some additional talking points and information as a challenge to him personally, and that is completely false.



But Kays...

Go back to page one of the thread and read again how this all developed. It indeed *should* have stopped at a "duh" after one or two posts. You're all saying the same thing, yet arguing over it. It's funny as hell.

I'm not taking anyone's side really, you're all great, but this thread and a couple of others is what leads me to believe some antipathies have developed while I was gone. There seems to be some history behind all this, and as someone who missed all of it, it's weird yet fascinating.

Mind you, I'm not complaining, I actually find it thoroughly entertaining otherwise I wouldn't be participating. :D


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

choc0thrax @ 12/2/2010 said:


> I find this thread pretty interesting, not from a samples point of view, because that's not what this thread is about, but from a psychological one- this and the vsl silent stage threads are a fascinating window into the world of mental illness. o-[][]-o



I must find that VSL Silent Stage thread...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 12, 2010)

nadeama @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Ed @ 12/2/2010 said:
> 
> 
> > hehe :D Yes I too am fascinated at just why people reacted to my suggestion the way they did. Going by people's responses you might think I had been suggesting something really stupid!
> ...



I'd never feel threatened by a guy using samples at a gig to replace me, 'cause there's no way in the world that it would be possible in this day and age.
Unless your definition of playing guitar is limited to eight-note power chords, it ain't happening any time soon.
Unless we're talking about phrases, which was an argumentthat I made early on...

I play guitar and yet, I own a bunch of guitar libs, so yea, I'm all for improvement of guitar libs. 
But with all the libs in the world, you'll never be able to do what I can do in a few minutes.
And yes, the opposite is true as well...

Love your condecendant tone BTW...


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

synergy543 @ 12/2/2010 said:


> Hey Martin!
> 
> Great to see you back here in the midst of this King of Hearts insanity, its good to see there is someone else here with a sane perspective.



Greg! Nice to hear from you! And nice to be back. 




> Have things really gotten wilder here since the day of Donny Christian?



Well, this place has always been a bit like a high-school courtyard, with little cliques ganging up on others (usually on unpopular developers), but now it seems like the animosity and silliness has spread between long-time members of the board, and I even see from other threads that former persona-non-grata developers have apparently been rehabilitated and the afore-mentioned cliques have now decided to gang up on the people criticizing the developers who were once fashionably being dissed by many of those same board members.

So I guess Donnie's particular brand of controlled schizophrenia may have been contagious after all. :mrgreen: 



> And the "weird fuck-ass zoo" seems to be more a reflection of the agitation and tension of our world in general rather than deranged minds on the forum - don't you think?



I have no idea, but it's certainly a plausible theory. :D


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ 12/2/2010 said:


> I'd never feel threatened by a guy using samples at a gig to replace me, 'cause there's no way in the world that it would be possible in this day and age.
> Unless your definition of playing guitar is limited to eight-note power chords, it ain't happening any time soon.
> Unless we're talking about phrases, which was an argumentthat I made early on...
> 
> ...



Patrick,

There was nothing condescending about what I said. I even said that it was normal and natural to feel that way. I might very well feel it too if I was still a performing pianist.

However, your reaction to my message just demonstrates what I was saying. You're saying yet again that samples can't do what a real player does (and in some cases vice-versa). Yeah, I know. Ed knows too. Kays knows it too. Everyone knows.

There was no reason for this thread to go on for 6 pages with everyone repeating the same things over and over again. You're all agreeing and yet you all keep arguing over it. And I'm not taking Ed's side, there was no reason for him to keep arguing either.

As I said, I've been gone for 18 months and now that I'm back I find this forum looking like an insane asylum. I know, you might say if I don't like it I should just leave, but that's the thing... it's *really* entertaining and funny. :mrgreen: 

Anyway, I don't know what happened between all of you guys, but maybe you should all take a moment and figure out if that's really the kind of discussions you want to have. From a (relative) oustsider's point of view, this thread and a few others make the forum look a little silly. Shame too, since there's also so much great info on here.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 12, 2010)

As obvious as the fact that good players can make the music sound better, equally obvious is the fact that we are all for better sample libraries.

So what are we talking about here?

Ed wants better samples so that he can get closer to TN.
Fine. 

Some of us are saying that some of the things present in the music of TN and others is not just about samples. TN happens to have partly based his model of music production on the capturing of live interaction of musicians with their instruments.

A world where human creativity and musicianship is limited to clicking on a mouse is fairly scary to me, yes. And not "because I am threatened to loose a gig" :roll: 
Simply because whether you realize it or not, the computer-based revolution has had a tremendously negative impact on the world of music, in parallel of having been a tremendous boost to our empowerment. It goes both ways.

Some of you may not be able to tell the difference that a certain part, performed by a TALENTED musician, in a given composition brings to the table.
I can.
And I'll repeat that there is a certain quality to TN music that is dependent on the interaction his musicians bring to the project. That is: playing your butt off and making it happen.
If you, as a programmer, happen to have great skills as a performer (TJ), you'll make your mockups come to life in a similar way, but you will be limited by the libraries that you use and their shortcomings.

One can still write beautiful, imaginative and trend-setting music only using samples.
It is just doesn't compare to what a group of musicians playing togeher can accomplish. Apples and oranges. period

As you mention, it is obvious.

So why is this thread so bloated?

Is it that Ed is loving all the attention that he is getting by doing his Norman Bates number?

And also, for the record, I have heard here a piece that Ed wrote (TN style) that I thought was very nice...


----------



## Ed (Feb 12, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> IMHO there's nothing in Trillian that sounds any better than Trilogy when it comes to realism.



I guess there's not much more to say to you Midphase if that's your perspective

I would love you to say that to Eric.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 12, 2010)

nadeama @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ 12/2/2010 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd never feel threatened by a guy using samples at a gig to replace me, 'cause there's no way in the world that it would be possible in this day and age.
> ...



Think again.

"You'll notice that the posters who first took issue with your suggestion are people who play the same type of instrument that you proposed should be sampled. People just don't like the idea that the instrument they've practiced years and years to master, and to which they have an intimate relationship, might get replaced by samples on a gig. It's just hard to accept, and that's pretty natural and normal if you think about it."

Aren't you throwing fuel to the fire there, by second guessing us?
I haven't made a living doing guitar-studio work since 1993.
My music income is made as a composer-producer.
I couldn't care less that a dude gets a gig with guitar samples.
How is that threatening to me? :roll: 

You talk about this place looking like a school yard, but I'm afraid that you are one of us, running around looking for attention  

What does the fact that we are long standing members has anything to do with it?
There has always been bitter arguments on public forums, often time due to the internet format and the fact that we insist on changing each other's point of view.
Of course the fact that we publish our thoughts publicly doesn' t help.
And despite the fact that you complain, that you are shocked at the sight of this feuding, you keep coming back for more.

It's like the scene at a car crash, everyone is guilty of being too curious.
Reality show.
Just don't pretend that you are not one of us, dude...


----------



## Ed (Feb 12, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Dude, stop cherry-picking what I'm saying, it is all relevant since neither you nor I know what is possible with samples beyond what we have heard until now. It's all speculative and you don't know anything more factual than anyone else (except for the developers who have walked down that path).



How did I cherry pick? 

You brought up the idea that there might not be a market to justify making such a library, so how is that relevant? If there was no market for VSL's products before they made them, that doesn't mean what they did would have been impossible. 



> What you don't seem to understand and continue to ignore is that this discussion has evolved in the same way that it evolved when you sidetracked it from being some guy asking if there's a library out there that could do the detuned mandolin thing.



How rich. 

I didn't sidetrack it, I've been talking about the subject from the start its all of you that want to tell me that live is better that sidetracked it. I don't see you complaining that every single one of Jay's points against mine has been against something I never even denied or implied in anyway. Yet you accuse me of sidetracking? Wow.



> You're just arguing for the sake of argument while guys like myself, Jay and Patrick simply wanted to expand on the subject and widen the scope of the discussion.



No people like you, Patrick and especially Jay want to tell everyone that live instruments are better and they act like I'm suggesting they aren't. People suggest I'm not knowledgeable or a good enough composer to know better. That's kind of annoying Midphase, yes.



> Since this is not Ed's VI Control forum, nor did you even start this thread, I don't see why you have to be so irritated when people feel the need to add their $.02 about the subject in general.



What pisses me off is I made a simple point about samples and what we could do to make them sound better and I get told I'm wrong because live is better than samples, and then we go for pages of me telling them that I know that live is better than samples but we're talking about samples not live instruments. Then you tell me the confusion was *my *fault!



> This might come as a surprise to you, but it's not always all about YOU. Grow up and learn to have an open discussion that stretches beyond your limited rationale.



I'm happy to have see a discussion veer off but not when they try and make out I'm incompetent or ignorant to know what they're talking about when every single post I say that I agree that live is better. If it isn't about me, then why keep trying to convince me of this thing that I already agree with?


----------



## Niah (Feb 12, 2010)

nadeama @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> > And the "weird f#@k-ass zoo" seems to be more a reflection of the agitation and tension of our world in general rather than deranged minds on the forum - don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, but it's certainly a plausible theory. :D



Yes lets not make people responsible for their actions, lets blame the world or violent video games.  I don't know about you guys but I don't seem to recall a time where the world was not full of tension or agitation, but I digress...  

I also don't see anything out of the ordinary here happening.

This is a discussion forum, so lets discuss.

Long time members seem to be more comfortable with each other and more passionate about certain things in the sample world so obviously things can get heated.

I have been enjoying this thread and the silent stage thread as well.

I find it however, very contra-productive that people who have not been following closely the discussion simply chime in to say how useless and pointless the whole discussion is/was. I mean if people are bothered by certain things or certain types of discussions that happen on this forum, the best way to handle it is just to ignore and let them die. Telling people how to discuss things or what they should or not say is just going to bring more fuel to the fire IMO.

This post is not directed at you in particular though, just making some overall observations.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 12, 2010)

Niah @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> This is a discussion forum, so lets discuss...





Niah @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> I find it however, very contra-productive that people who have not been following closely the discussion simply chime in to say how useless and pointless the whole discussion is/was.


Ha! What an oxymoron!

Its OK for you to comment but not for other to do so?

btw Niah, FYI, I was simply saying hi to a old friend from this forum I haven't seen for while. You are the one, chiming in to say how useless and pointless it is.

But carry on with your discussion as I don't care to participate in the sludge you're dredging up.

.....back to Half-Life dude..... =o


----------



## Niah (Feb 12, 2010)

What?

Did you read my post? I was talking to nadeama, he was the one that brought up the long time members thing and this being a zoo. I was commenting on that.

How am I saying this is pointless and that people shouldn't comment?


----------



## Niah (Feb 12, 2010)

oops my bad I thought nadeama had said that... :oops: 

but he just said the theory thing.. :? 

Anyway my post was still directed to him

now I'm going to have to look up this oxymoron thing, I hope it's not an insult


----------



## midphase (Feb 12, 2010)

" There seems to be some history behind all this, and as someone who missed all of it, it's weird yet fascinating."

Martin, did you find that Silent Stage thread yet?


"I didn't sidetrack it, I've been talking about the subject from the start its all of you that want to tell me that live is better that sidetracked it."

Ed, not at all. The original poster was asking if anyone could help him find some detuned mandolin samples and we all offered suggestions. They you took this thread into the "why can't someone sample a better mandolin.." direction...fine. Then Patrick Jay and I commented on the challenges of doing that and how there are limitations to sampling technology which might make a satisfactory emulation impossible (satisfactory being the key and extremely subjective word here)....and then it's been going in circles ever since. We might have kept the discussion going (and I admit it's kinda fun), but you've been keeping it up as well...so don't act like this is all someone else's doing.


"People suggest I'm not knowledgeable or a good enough composer to know better. That's kind of annoying Midphase, yes. "

Sorry dude....I had the same issue on Northernsounds until I revealed my identity. It's your choice to be mysterious so live with the consequences that people will assume you're an Ableton LIVE jockey or some fan boy. If you care to change how people regard you it's got to start from you.


"What pisses me off is I made a simple point about samples and what we could do to make them sound better and I get told I'm wrong because live is better than samples, and then we go for pages of me telling them that I know that live is better than samples but we're talking about samples not live instruments. Then you tell me the confusion was my fault! "


Look...FWIW I never said you were wrong, I simply stated that to me live sounds better than Memorex. You're the one who is extrapolating that because I say that that I'm implying that you're full of shit. I'm not, I'm just adding my $.02

"I'm happy to have see a discussion veer off but not when they try and make out I'm incompetent or ignorant to know what they're talking about when every single post I say that I agree that live is better. If it isn't about me, then why keep trying to convince me of this thing that I already agree with?"

Regarding the ignorant or incompetent, I already answered that one. What you're totally getting wrong is that I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just stating my opinion. If anything, you're the one who's making "factual" statements. Are you suggesting that I can't express my opinion because it might imply that you're wrong?


"IMHO there's nothing in Trillian that sounds any better than Trilogy when it comes to realism.

I guess there's not much more to say to you Midphase if that's your perspective 

I would love you to say that to Eric."

Sure I'll say that to Eric next time I run into him at Portos. I didn't say that Trillian is not cool or that I'm not endorsing it to all my friend, but yeah, I don't think it's any more realistic than Trilogy. That's really a compliment to Eric's work on Trilogy rather than a diss of Trillian. You really really feel that Trillian is that much more realistic than Trilogy? Realistic? I'll say it's beefier, it's got more bells and whistles, but more realistic? If you really want to talk realism, Scarbee had all the competition beat a decade ago.

I think the irony of this thread is that your whole point for bringing up this discussion in the first place is that apparently the current crop of TN mandolin-ish samples is not up to your standards, right? I mean you'd like for someone to do a better job with it right? So really this is all about standards and what you consider to be acceptable vs what Jay considers to be acceptable. I'm sure there are some guys who thing that Hans Zimmer Guitars 2 is more than adequate for what they need.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 12, 2010)

Niah @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> oops my bad I thought nadeama had said that... :oops:
> 
> but he just said the theory thing.. :?
> 
> ...



Well, it doesn't mean that you're a moron but what you said sort of is.... :oops:

Oxymoron Def: something that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

Oh, nevermind,....just carry on. o-[][]-o 0oD


----------



## midphase (Feb 12, 2010)

Yey....page 7!!!

Let's see if we can beat the HS thread in number of pages.


----------



## Niah (Feb 12, 2010)

@synergy: You are right that post was a contradiction indeed, thanks calling on it.


----------



## Niah (Feb 12, 2010)

I find that sometimes the term "realistic" is too elusive or that it means different things to other people.


----------



## Ed (Feb 12, 2010)

Whoo boy...


... ok this post is going to be epic, sorry to all and thanks to anyone who reads it all. Apparently some people are enjoying the argument so I'm sure this will be at least entertaining :lol: 



midphase @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> If Ed's whole point was to suggest that a detuned mandolin library which uses round robin and a multitude of samples is better than one which doesn't goes without saying and should be followed by a "duh."
> 
> If Ed's point was to suggest that a better sampled detuned mandolin would be good enough for most, that point definitely got lost in translation.



You sure do have a problem telling me what my point was.

What I said was that if you look at the performance style like that in the Rain Hammers track from Road to Perdition of that ethnic stringed Saz or Mandolin and you think: _how could we sample an ethnic guitar to get close to that sound and effect?_ It has nothing to do with what *else *it might be able to do, whether it can replace a live player or if it can't sound exactly like a live performance. My position was that I saw very little needed to be done to get something close to this or at least a very usable version that is similar. Just some experimentation with the technique from Pettinhouse tweaked and expanded to create a looser and even more detailed version with an ethnic stringed instrument.



> I think the problem is that Ed interpreted a simple case of providing some additional talking points and information as a challenge to him personally, and that is completely false.



Absolutely wrong. 
_
(btw you might notice a certain theme running throughout, see if you can spot it)_



*Page 1:*

Patrick decided he would continually respond to my posts by telling me that live is better, great musicians are better. Yes Patrick, I know that, no one denies that. :roll: 

Then you started telling me I sound like a MIDI only guy, because otherwise I'd know that live is better than samples. There's just too much going on with a guitar to sample it well and that it won't compare to getting a live player in. 



*
Page 2. *

You suggest that you remain skeptical because no one has ever done it before, ignoring the fact that we have Pettinhouse (_so we have a good strumming sampling technique that already exists_) that could be improved/tweaked to do so.

Patrick continues to tell me something I already know, that live is better, that Newman gets live musicians in. He tells me that Newman wouldn't use a sampled version.

Patrick responds to Folmann's demo stating the obvious again. That samples can't compete with _"the best human performance." _. Thanks Patrick, I mean, I almost forgot.

You agree with Patrick saying that if one has ever played a stringed instrument they would know that its "_incredibly difficult to translate into samples_". I agree. Before VSL it was very hard to create a good solo woodwinds part, after VSL its not so difficult. For virtuoso passages its *still *incredibly difficult. 

Patrick again replies to me telling me I'm shortsighted because he is only trying to say that live is better! That's how you breath life in your tracks! He tells me that I should get out of my house and go find some live musicians instead of thinking about samples. Otherwise he says I'm just never going to understand the essence of Newman's music. I'm so thankful he and you and Asher were there to tell me this stuff I thought I already knew!



*
Page 3:*

Patrick writes a post explaining to people how complex an instrument the guitar is. Its so complex, so many variations and nuances. Great, now do violin! Do trumpet! Do flute!

Patrick replies to me saying I should stop posting and good luck with my Tonehammer "substitute". Missing the point again I see, at least he didn't try and convince me live was better again but then he only wrote about 2 lines.

You then reply to me telling me that maybe physical modelling is the answer because... wait for it... yes you guessed it, because live is better. The guitar is just so complex, after all there's a "_myriad of harmonic and sympathetic interactions happening even on a very simple strum_."

Jay Asher then replies to you saying I probably don't have the experience of working with live players to understand such a thing. He puts me in the camp that have only worked with sampled instruments. He says these people just aren't "_wise_" enough to "_acknowledge_" that... live is better. People should really only take my opinion with a "_grain of salt_", he says.

Nathan Allen Pinard agrees that if sampled correctly you could get that sound in Rain Hammers with samples. Mike Connelly also replies to Nathan saying he also agrees.

You decide to show lack of imagination since you tell me you on the other hand cannot see how the Pettinhouse technique sounds like the part in Rain Hammers if you imagine an ethnic guitar sampled in a similar way.

Synthetic suggests a Zither library, unfortunately missing the point that we were looking for a strumming effect.

You then reply to me again telling me that while you feel Pettinhouse does sound quite good, the part in Rain Hammers sounds more human. You even tell me you could play and record it slightly different to create this sound. Unfortunately you also say that you don't think it will work because... live is better. You then lastly ask to see music I've written, I presume it is to see if Jay is correct about me being a sample only guy so you know if you can take my opinion with a "grain of salt" or not.

Jay Asher then replies again to me. He says he understands what I'm saying to him but that .... live is better and writes 3 paragraphs to make sure I get it. 

Jay makes a point to someone else which explains why he is so intent on trying to make sure everyone knows that ... live is better... he explain that he is _"emotionally invested_" in _"promoting the idea that great real players need to be supported and hired whenever possible"_. Why is that Jay? He continues.... "_because they are so vastly superior to samples to anyone who knows enough to know the difference._". Because people who only work with samples don't really know the difference you see? And he has to remind people of that, whether they already agree doesn't really matter I guess!. 

You decide to reply to me again and tell me that I'm wrong because you say... live is better... you just can't do what you'd need to do with our current state of technology.

Asher replies again to me with another 200 word post trying to convince me live is better. He explains that to be a successful sample we have to be able to say "_this sounds every bit as good as a good orchestra"_


----------



## Ed (Feb 12, 2010)

*Page 4:*

Asher replies again, with again roughly 200 words explaining to me something no one really disagrees with. Yes its boring to say now, live is better. Giacchino, Newman, they all use live players because they "_know the difference_". He tells me he hopes I don't become successful, because the "_value of a real orchestra_" will be even more of an "_endangered species_"! Cheers Jay! 

/\~O 

Synthetic posts and says that live is always better.

Asher replies with a massive post that can effectively be summed up in 3 words, again. LIVE IS BETTER. :lol: He not only explains again that live is better, but that for a sample library to be a success to him it would need to be able to play whatever he wanted it to play exactly like a great player would play the instrument, which is why he explains how great players add so much to a performance. He explains that I do not understand any of this, even though I had already explained that I do over and over again. 

Mike decides to stick up for Asher, but still isn't able to explain what any of Asher's points have to do with anything I posted or where I disagreed with the point that... live is better.

You decide to chime in again posting some examples of your own work to show everyone that live is better. Real guitar beat sampled guitar, see? I guess you wanted to do that in case any silent readers didn't agree with that I suppose.

Damon said that its probably a Saz and a sample can be found in Ethno World 1. This post got a bit lost but I should have replied saying this had reminded me a lot of Newman's when I had heard it in the demo and that it would be nice to have it more deeply sampled so we can do more with it.

Asher replies to me telling me he knows samples are great, he uses samples, he likes them. That he isn't saying they shouldnt try and make them better. (then why he bearguing?) He then feels the need to insult my work and tells me he wants to see my "_significant compositional/career achievements_", I guess its so he can know how much of a "_grain of salt_" he should take my opinions.

You reply to me telling me that to you a sample library that I'm talking about would never be satisfactory to you since you own guitars and you know that live is just so much better!

You reply again, you tell me that no one is talking about a 100% replication. (Obviously you forget what Asher says.) But you just don't see how an instrument can satisfactorily match the playing style in that Rain Hammers cue. You also feel the need to tell me that, in case I didn't know already, live is actually better and that you're at at disadvantage compared to those that do use a live player if you're using samples.

Another reply from you, now you get real wishy-washy, its all subjective man! Unfortunately you had to go post that Oud performance saying that you don't believe its possible to sample unless someone shows it to you. I say its a shame since I never suggested the technique I mentioned could make it do everything or somehow capture the essence of a great live player's nuances and expression. Unless you were just wanting to let me know that live is better, in case I didn't really really get it yet.




*Part 5*

You reply to me explaining that VSL flute is a "better compromise". Yes that's right, you compared a well sampled instrument to an instrument hardly sampled at all. You also explain that you wouldn't rely on Pettinhouse exclusively, in other words you're saying that its because live - is - better.

Asher tells me I'm just as "_dumb as squirrels_"! :lol: He has to explain to me that for a sample to be satisfactory it means that unless it sounds like bunch of good players its not good enough for him. To sample a Mandolin just won't be "satisfactory" for him, you or Newman unless it can do that!

Asher replies again and decides to contradict himself straight away and says that LASS is certainly a successful library, despite just arguing that unless Newman would use a sampled instrument (_so, like LASS_) over a live performance (_like a live string section_) its not "successful" or "satisfactory". So logically then since Newman doesn't do this therefore LASS can't be a successful library. He also asked me why all this is so difficult to understand... we get it Jay,* live is better. *We always did.




*Page 6:*

Asher tells me again a sample libary cannot be "_100% successful_" if it "c_ould be better realized by real players."_. I wonder when we started talking about "_100%_" success... why now start stressing "100%"?

You tell me that Eric didn't really *need* to make Trilogy or Trillion since everything we needed for bass was fulfilled with Bass Legends years ago. I guess that means Bass Legends were satisfactory emulations of the instruments, hmm.. remember what you and Asher consider successful and satisfactory? I do. :wink: 












You reply telling me that the reason Eric made Trillion was so he *could have a new car.* That it doesn't even sound any better than Trilogy, but we already know that Bass Legends really sorted all our bass needs anyway...

You tell me that unless someone makes it we can't know if it will work. Yea Midphase, I mean no one has sampled themselves smashing their head into their wall with multiple round robins, I mean we already know it works on a things like snares and timpanis and bottles and marimbas but unless someone tries it on this weò’k   Ä¤’k   Ä¤ž’k   Ä¤Ÿ’k   Ä¤ ’k   Ä¤¡’k   Ä¤¢’k   Ä¤£’k   Ä¤¤’k   Ä¤¥’k   Ä¤¦’k   Ä¤§’k   Ä¤¨’k   Ä¤©’k   Ä¤ª’k   Ä¤«’k   Ä¤¬’k   Ä¤­’k   Ä¤®’k   Ä¤¯’k   Ä¤°’k   Ä¤±’k   Ä¤²’k   Ä¤³’k   Ä¤´’k   Ä¤µ’k   Ä¤¶’k   Ä¤·’k   Ä¤¸’k   Ä¤¹’k   Ä¤º’k   Ä¤»’k   Ä¤¼’k   Ä¤½’k   Ä¤¾’k   Ä¤¿’k   Ä¤À’k   Ä¤Á’k   Ä¤Â’k   Ä¤Ã’k   Ä¤Ä’k   Ä¤Å’k   Ä¤Æ’k   Ä¤Ç’k   Ä¤È’k   Ä¤É’k   Ä¤Ê’k   Ä¤Ë’k   Ä¤Ì’k   Ä¤Í’k   Ä¤Î’k   Ä¤Ï’k   Ä¤Ð’k   Ä¤Ñ’k   Ä¤Ò’k   Ä¤Ó’k   Ä¤Ô’k   Ä¤Õ’k   Ä¤Ö’k   Ä¤×’k   Ä¤Ø’k   Ä¤Ù’k   Ä¤Ú’k   Ä¤Û’k   Ä¤Ü’k   Ä¤Ý’k   Ä¤Þ’k   Ä¤ß’k   Ä¤à’k   Ä¤á’k   Ä¤â’k   Ä¤ã’k   Ä¤ä’k   Ä¤å’k   Ä¤æ’k   Ä¤ç’k   Ä¤è’k   Ä¤é’k   Ä¤ê’k   Ä¤ë’k   Ä¤ì’k   Ä¤í’k   Ä¤î’k   Ä¤ï’k   Ä¤ð’k   Ä¤ñ’k   Ä¤ò’k   Ä¤ó’k   Ä¤ô’k   Ä¤õ’k   Ä¤ö’k   Ä¤÷’k   Ä¤ø’k


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ 12/2/2010 said:


> As obvious as the fact that good players can make the music sound better, equally obvious is the fact that we are all for better sample libraries.
> 
> So what are we talking about here?
> 
> ...



Patrick, up to that point I completely agree with you.



> A world where human creativity and musicianship is limited to clicking on a mouse is fairly scary to me, yes.



And it is quite scary to me too. Again I agree with you.



> And not "because I am threatened to loose a gig" :roll:



There has been a misunderstanding about this, but I'll address that in my reply to your following post.



> Simply because whether you realize it or not, the computer-based revolution has had a tremendously negative impact on the world of music, in parallel of having been a tremendous boost to our empowerment. It goes both ways.



Again, I completely agree.



> Some of you may not be able to tell the difference that a certain part, performed by a TALENTED musician, in a given composition brings to the table.
> I can.



Don't worry, I can too. I've been studying and making music for a while.



> So why is this thread so bloated?
> 
> Is it that Ed is loving all the attention that he is getting by doing his Norman Bates number?



Now see, this is where I get a little lost. I've read this thread from start to finish last night (it was *that* enthralling). I would guess this might bring a perspective that is different than if I had participated in it from the beginning and had gradually posted messages.

What I see is Ed making a suggestion that seems pretty reasonable, and then some posters saying that it wouldn't be as good as the real thing, then Ed saying he knows but it would still be better, sample-wise, than what is already available, and then the horse ride starts and you guys seem intent on proving him wrong even though you're all saying the same thing.

So, from where I'm sitting, everyone is doing a Norman Bates number.

If it was only to bring the discussion elsewhere, fine, but that's not how it appears when you read it from start to finish. It looks like people bickering and arguing just for the sake of it, and then comes really close to insults in some of the comments. And also, if it was only this one thread I'd say "okay, heated discussion", but I see this same kind of arguing in other recent threads (the Bela D threads and some others I forgot).

... which is what leads me to wonder what may have happened between members of the forum since I was gone. Or is it just a recent development and things will soon get back to normal (assuming how it was when I used to more frequently post here was indeed normal)? I haven't gotten much info so far, but apparently some clues lie hidden in that VSL Silent Stage thread that I haven't had time to read yet. I will keep investigating... :wink:


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 12, 2010)

I was going to read all that but I think I'll just wait for the movie.


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ 12/2/2010 said:


> Aren't you throwing fuel to the fire there, by second guessing us?
> I haven't made a living doing guitar-studio work since 1993.
> My music income is made as a composer-producer.
> I couldn't care less that a dude gets a gig with guitar samples.
> How is that threatening to me? :roll:



I didn't mean that instrumentalists would feel threatened in the way you took it, but now re-reading my original post I can see that I didn't express myself correctly and it did indeed seem like I was saying that.

What I meant is that musiscians generally don't like when it is suggested that samples could replace their instrument. They don't like when it is said that samples can replace *any* instrument, but it certainly particularly "hits home" when it is their own instrument that is being discussed. The reaction is often more "visceral", and I find it quite normal and even healthy; I mean I'd find it a little strange if someone said "yeah, samples can do everything a good [insert instrument name] player can do and more, and I don't care". I'd wonder what kind of love this guy has for his instrument or music in general.

For some people, the reaction is a bit stronger than for others, and it can blind them to what the poster is really saying. He might not be saying that samples can do *everything* a good instrumentalist can do, but that it can be an acceptable substitute. This seems pretty reasonable to me, but from witnessing different discussions over the years, it seems it does not always seem reasonable to everybody.

So Ed was wondering why the reaction to what he was suggesting had been so "violent", and I offered this possible explanation. I'm not the kind of poster who puts "IMHO" everywhere; I find it a bit corny and I assume people know what I'm saying is always just my opinion. In this case, it wasn't an opinion as much as a possible theory, but maybe I should have specified anyway. Please note that I also said that players often have a better ear for their own instrument and discern subtleties that non-players can't hear. That's another possible explanation. And now I'm also thinking that there's some history behind all this and that people might have just been looking for a reason to argue. I don't know...

In any case, what I was NOT saying is that you or anyone else is afraid of losing jobs to samples. This is actually another problem in itself, but I know pretty much everyone here is a composer and woudn't be much affected by that anyway. But I admit it sounded like what I was saying because my post was badly worded. 



> You talk about this place looking like a school yard, but I'm afraid that you are one of us, running around looking for attention



Please no!!!! I don't wanna go back to school, not yet again!!! :evil: 



> What does the fact that we are long standing members has anything to do with it?



I don't know, you tell me...

I only mentioned that there seemed to be some animosity between long-standing members (I might be wrong, but that's how it seems). It's just an observation, it doesn't really have anything to do with anything. It just means that I don't recall it being that way before, and now that's how it seems to be. But to be honest, the paragraph this comment was taken from was meant to be rather humoristic (in a sarcastic kind of way), and not to be taken too seriously.



> There has always been bitter arguments on public forums, often time due to the internet format and the fact that we insist on changing each other's point of view.
> Of course the fact that we publish our thoughts publicly doesn' t help.
> 
> And despite the fact that you complain, that you are shocked at the sight of this feuding, you keep coming back for more.



I'm not shocked, it takes a lot more that this to shock me. And I'm not complaining either, you may have missed the several times where I said it was damn entertaining and funny. I'm really enjoying myself right now.

All I said is how the board is looking right now to someone who hasn't been here in a while, and wondering if this is really the form of discussion you guys want to be having (it's not only this thread, it's others). It does seem a bit silly and possible new members looking for info might be a little put off, which is a bit of a shame since this place also has such a wealth of great info.

But if that's how you guys like it, fine, more entertainment! I don't really have a problem. I just reserve the right to mention how things look to me, not that I think anyone should care, really.



> It's like the scene at a car crash, everyone is guilty of being too curious.
> Reality show.
> 
> Just don't pretend that you are not one of us, dude...



Dude, I didn't know this was a sect...


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

Niah @ 12/2/2010 said:


> Yes lets not make people responsible for their actions, lets blame the world or violent video games.  I don't know about you guys but I don't seem to recall a time where the world was not full of tension or agitation, but I digress...



Okay Niah, it's *your* fault!!! All yours, yours, yours, and only *yours*!!! :lol: 



> I also don't see anything out of the ordinary here happening.



I admit I haven't been to the club in a while, I just renewed my membership. So you may very well be right.  



> I find it however, very contra-productive that people who have not been following closely the discussion simply chime in to say how useless and pointless the whole discussion is/was.



Well, I have followed this one particular discussion from start to finish and it was definitely mostly pointless. That's a pretty objective statement to be honest. It may not have been totally useless though, as some good info managed to get in there, but most of the arguments made a single point and then repeated it, and repeated it, and repeated it. Which eventually makes the discussion pointless. Or maybe it was mono-pointed? I don't know... :wink: 

Now, my comments would have been counter-productive if there actually had been some production going on. But as it stands, they were indeed probably just useless, but harmless.  





> I mean if people are bothered by certain things or certain types of discussions that happen on this forum, the best way to handle it is just to ignore and let them die.



Well yeah, but where's the fun in that?



> Telling people how to discuss things or what they should or not say is just going to bring more fuel to the fire IMO.



I didn't mean to tell people what to say though, maybe it sounded that way but that was not my intention. I was just expressing an opinion, making some observations, and asking some questions. People are of course free to converse in any way that pleases them.

As for putting fuel on the fire, well maybe but... I just don't really care. If it burns too much you guys put it out. :mrgreen: 

But honestly, I doubt I have that much power.



> This post is not directed at you in particular though, just making some overall observations.



Of course it was directed at me. You can say it, it's okay, you're allowed. I don't mind. :D


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

Niah @ 12/2/2010 said:


> oops my bad I thought nadeama had said that... :oops:
> 
> but he just said the theory thing.. :?



It's okay Niah, I'm the one who first made the zoo comment. So you were spot-on.  

Please understand that I have a pretty sarcastic sense of humor though, so you should take everything I say with a grain of salt. Analyse it for several minutes before replying to any of my stuff, and ask yourself whether it should be taken seriously or not, and what the deep philosophical message is behind all of my posts.

I ask no less of my virtual interlocutors. :mrgreen: 




> Anyway my post was still directed to him.



See, I knew it! It *was* directed at me!!!


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

midphase @ 12/2/2010 said:


> " There seems to be some history behind all this, and as someone who missed all of it, it's weird yet fascinating."
> 
> Martin, did you find that Silent Stage thread yet?



Hi Kays,

I found it but didn't get a chance to read it. I was just about to, but my girlfriend forced me to watch some godawful horror movie on cable tv. And believe me it was baaaad, but this being Valentine's day weekend, I wasn't allowed to say no. I tried but she got the whip and leech out and I obeyed like a little chiwawa.

But I'll try to go through it tomorrow. Hopefully it holds all the answers...


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

synthetic @ 12/2/2010 said:


> I like turtles.



Really?

Whenever I see one I kick it in the nuts. :mrgreen:


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

choc0thrax @ 13/2/2010 said:


> I was going to read all that but I think I'll just wait for the movie.



But the movie is never as good as the book...


----------



## nadeama (Feb 12, 2010)

This one is just to up my post count.


----------



## mf (Feb 12, 2010)

Seven posts in a row, wow. Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi!


----------



## Niah (Feb 13, 2010)

Hey Nadeama,

My post was dumb and like synergy stated full of contradictions. :oops: 

Anyways thank you for taking the time on sharing your thoughts with us. That is was a discussion forum is, just ignore what I said.


----------



## midphase (Feb 13, 2010)

Hello Ed,

You have distorted, misinterpreted and misquoted practically everything I said and quite frankly I don't even know to begin. On the other hand, you have offered nothing that supports your points other than speculation. You consistently compare apples to oranges, and then point out irrelevancy when someone else does the same, and you're obviously irked that some are calling your knowledge into question yet you refuse to provide any information on yourself or your work methodology.

In the words of Barney Frank : "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."


PS.

It's a shame that a conversation which could have provided some interesting insights and varied points of view has turned into such a waste of time.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Feb 13, 2010)

Wow. I can't believe it came to this...(then again).

In a pinch, I posted a call for ideas. In turn, many of you pointed me to new developers and I discovered a few new colours for my pallete. For this I thank you.

Now, checking in several days later I found that my innocent thread has become a barnburner of sorts. Usually I am the last thread in a post, but this time ...wow. How captivating.

I was taken back (with a smile on my face), back to the times when we had such fun on NS and VI. Remember when Nick Phoenix 'challenged' TJ to post his midi files (or at least a screencap) back in the day?

Or how could we forget our beloved friends Vault Complex, Houston Hayes and Simon Ravn having delightful c*/kfights in various threads? A veritable Battle Royale!

Or the infamous Nathan Furst Reverb thread. Such kind and helpful words were exchanged. We really DID get to the bottom of it all, didn't we?!

Those were the days when no bile was spilled. Champagne and lollipops for all the good little boys......and a visit to Simon in Denmark for the bad ones. Heck Simon and his alterego Lewis (remember him - you know, the elephant keeper in the Copenhagen zoo)? Such good times. I cherish the memories.

Many of you won't recall such things or scratch your heads in alarmed confusion - this post is not for you. The rest will smile to themselves and remember the Halcyon days of composing forums......



Xtra credit: What was Chris Beck's NS member number? Hint it is a prime number...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 13, 2010)

nadeama @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ 12/2/2010 said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't you throwing fuel to the fire there, by second guessing us?
> ...



It's all good... and yes, we are a sect of sorts...


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 13, 2010)

Niah @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> nadeama @ Fri Feb 12 said:
> 
> 
> > > And the "weird f#@k-ass zoo" seems to be more a reflection of the agitation and tension of our world in general rather than deranged minds on the forum - don't you think?
> ...



Wait a minute. You got a problem with observations about pointlessness, but no problems with a general rudeness, lack of civility, and endless circular debates that end up being about nothing...and what you DO like are violent video games and gladiator/vs Roman soldier/last man standing arguments? They seem to amuse you, and you certainly ( and gleefully, it seems) participate in enough of them.

There's nothing remarkable in the subject matter of this endless debate. What's remarkable is the ill will.

I continue to contend that these arguments that are essentially about warring personalities and dogged 'who's right' b.s., and that they detract from the many good things about this forum. I'd still prefer it to remain open to whatever comes down the pike, but I'll damn well mention it when I feel it's gone off the path of any sort of reasonable discussion. YMMV, and obviously does.

The world may be full of 'tension and agitation', indeed. I don't have to like it or agree to accept it as the norm.


----------



## Udo (Feb 13, 2010)

* 

It's both comical and sad, but I think a major aspect of this thread can be summed up as:

Big egos, desperately trying to conceal their fragile personality, while exposing a serious dose of narcissism and less than civil behaviour.

Udo


----------



## Niah (Feb 13, 2010)

:lol: 

Larry,



Niah @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> Hey Nadeama,
> 
> My post was dumb and like synergy stated full of contradictions. :oops:



I don't understand how you could miss this, it's on this very page.

"They seem to amuse you, and you certainly ( and gleefully, it seems) participate in enough of them."

(o) ~o) :?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

If you look closely that's russel crowe not me.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 13, 2010)

Niah @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> :lol:
> 
> Larry,
> 
> ...



Niah- well, I stand by the content of what I posted, but you're right, I did miss this.
I couldn't read every post in this thread, it would take a month. I'm just dismayed that it goes on and on, and wonder when the players will move on. I suppose you're right in one aspect, I should just stop watching, and I shall.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 13, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> Hello Ed,
> 
> You have distorted, misinterpreted and misquoted practically everything I said and quite frankly I don't even know to begin. On the other hand, you have offered nothing that supports your points other than speculation. You consistently compare apples to oranges, and then point out irrelevancy when someone else does the same, and you're obviously irked that some are calling your knowledge into question yet you refuse to provide any information on yourself or your work methodology.



Sorry, Kays, but that it simply not true and it's also a highly unfair distillation of what Ed's been saying (or, at least, trying to say) in the course of these many pages. You seem to treat the content of your debating opponents' writings with the same casual and sloppy disdain as with which you've explored Trilian's many new possibilities, resulting in a very crippled insight of what's actually been attempted and/or achieved.
Ed's made several valid points — something which any honest and neutral observer simply can't deny —, and has tried (with an increasingly disarming blend of desperation and frustration, I think) to make these points understood, only to run, time and again, into a rejecting wall of stubborn refusal, patronizing dismissal or, worse, uncalled for condescension and a totally misplaced sense of superiority.

I must say, I do like and completely share Ed's optimism where sample technology and virtual instruments are concerned: we're still far from where we would like to be — Ed acknowledges that —, but we've definitely advanced significantly over the past few years and there's no reason to assume that things won't progress in that same direction. An exciting future to look forward to for us, DAW-oriented musicians. And it is precisely this optimism, nothing more really, which lies at the heart of nearly every word Ed wrote, I believe.

_


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 13, 2010)

re-peat @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> midphase @ Sat Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Hello Ed,
> ...



Piet- I quite literally laughed out loud at your use of the word 'disarming'.


----------



## midphase (Feb 13, 2010)

" You seem to treat the content of your debating opponents' writings with the same casual and sloppy disdain as with which you've explored Trilian's many new possibilities"

? ¿ ?

I was beginning to wonder how long it would take for Re-Peat to add his brilliant insight to all of this.


----------



## Ed (Feb 13, 2010)

re-peat @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> midphase @ Sat Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Hello Ed,
> ...



I was going to reply to Midphase but I think this says enough!

But from experience of 7 pages of arguing with them, I'd be careful about how your last paragraph is worded or else they will probably assume you're saying that samples can replace a real instrument with a great player and they will have to try and explain to you that live is better in great patronising detail.

Live is better.
Live is better.
Live is better.

/\~O 

Just keep making sure you say it in every post so when they try and explain to you that live is better you can tell them that you already knew that and you said so in the very post they quoted. When they reply to that, they'll tell you that you are the one that misunderstood them while still trying to convince you that live is in fact better. :lol: 


In all seriousness though re-peat, cheers for this post. I'm glad someone else gets what I'm trying to say. o-[][]-o 


You know I really would love to know why they ever thought telling me that a live player would be better than a sample was relevant in any way whatsoever, but there you go. You'd think they knew nothing about samples or something.


----


I want to say again that when looking at samples I don't think of it as live vs samples. I think of what sounds good, it just so happens that live usually sounds better than samples most of the time. 

When looking at samples I think about they *can *do rather than what they can't. So when I think about what we can improve with samples, I don't think about the entire instruments realism being upgraded but rather in how to make *specific playing styles* more realistic. This applies to every sample ever! Prosonus Orchestra released years and years and years ago, that Newman still likes to use for some reason in the final product. It can do Pizz and Stacc well but not much else. So thats's why I was *only *focused on the section in the Rain Hammers track rather than anything else about the instrument. 

If you look at what we had with Zimmer guitars, to make it better at that time in the way I was talking about here is to create round robins, add release triggers, more velocities etc. This makes them able to create much more successful emulations of guitar playing styles that they could before. Apparently this is a harder concept to grasp for some people than you might imagine, but since I assume everyone that understands me does by now (like re-peat) and everyone who doesn't still doesn't I won't belabour this point much further.

When I talk about looking at a playing style and asking just what we could do to make a sample "play" that playing style "better", I feel the same way when I think about sequencing techniques. For example, aside from TJ's talent for orchestration he has certain techniques when it comes to sequencing itself that obviously do wonders for the "perceived realism" of that sample. I'm sure a lot of this comes down to understanding how the instrument works, but a lot of people are good at orchestration but can't do what he does, so he must be doing something in addition to this. 

So, when we are trying to think about how we can get a "more successful emulation" of whatever instrument and playing style we are talking about with samples, we mustn't also forget that _sequencing techniques and mixing_ are also factors, not just the samples themselves. TJ made old orchestral samples sounò“
   ÄÏï“
   ÄÏð“
   ÄÏñ“
   ÄÏò“
   ÄÏó“
   ÄÏô“
   ÄÏõ“
   ÄÏö“
   ÄÏ÷“
   ÄÏø“
   ÄÏù“
   ÄÏú“
   ÄÏû“
   ÄÏü“
   ÄÏý“
   ÄÏþ“
   ÄÏÿ“
   ÄÐ “
   ÄÐ“
   ÄÐ“
   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ	“   ÄÐ
“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ “   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ“   ÄÐ “   ÄÐ!“   ÄÐ"“   ÄÐ#“   ÄÐ$“   ÄÐ%“   ÄÐ&“   ÄÐ'“   ÄÐ(“   ÄÐ)“   ÄÐ*“   ÄÐ+“   ÄÐ,“   ÄÐ-“   ÄÐ.“   ÄÐ/“   ÄÐ0“   ÄÐ1“   ÄÐ2“   ÄÐ3“   ÄÐ4“   ÄÐ5“   ÄÐ6“   ÄÐ7“   ÄÐ8“   ÄÐ9“   ÄÐ:“   ÄÐ;“   ÄÐ<“   ÄÐ=“   ÄÐ>“   ÄÐ?“   ÄÐ@“   ÄÐA“   ÄÐB“   ÄÐC“   ÄÐD“   ÄÐE“   ÄÐF“   ÄÐG“   ÄÐH“   ÄÐI“   ÄÐJ“   ÄÐK“   ÄÐL“   ÄÐM“   ÄÐN“   ÄÐO“   ÄÐP“   ÄÐQ“   ÄÐR“   ÄÐS“   ÄÐT“   ÄÐU“   ÄÐV“   ÄÐW“   ÄÐX“   ÄÐY“   ÄÐZ“   ÄÐ[“   ÄÐ\“   ÄÐ]“   ÄÐ^              ò“   ÄÐ`“   ÄÐa“   ÄÐb“   ÄÐc“   ÄÐd“   ÄÐe“   ÄÐf“   ÄÐg“   ÄÐh“


----------



## midphase (Feb 13, 2010)

Un-fucking-believable! 

I'm out, thanks for playing but I got work to do.


----------

