# Workaround for SIPS/release samples conflict?



## zaster (Aug 9, 2007)

Hmm... I read a lot of it but don't have enough time right now to delve into the entire many pages of that discussion. I couldn't see what you were refering me to listen to (when you said "here's an example of what that would sound like") But what Bob was saying, he was going on the assumption that people want RTs for reverb, which is not the case for me. What I _don't_ want is the closure of an inside note on a legato line and I don't want the "missing closure" at the end of the line. Right now I am just not using SIPS even though it would make the legato more realistic, but I _am_ disabling the RTs on the inside notes and I don't hear anything weird. I tried to use SIPS while the RTs were disabled and what I got was silence altogether. I suppose I could make something like a duplicate of the same patch with rts deleted and SIPS and then keyswitch between that one and the one with RTs, just to end the line. But for the life of me, while the RTs are disabled via Group Starts Options and there's _only_ the regular group playing, I don't understand why SIPS is resulting in silence.


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 9, 2007)

Hi Z

I know that there is a lot of controversy about the use of RTs and many do not agree with my views but....



> What I don't want is the closure of an inside note on a legato line and I don't want the "missing closure" at the end of the line. Right now I am just not using SIPS even though it would make the legato more realistic, but I am disabling the RTs on the inside notes and I don't hear anything weird.



I essentially agree with you on this (as also does Nils). If I ever were to add release sample handling to the Legato script, it would simply 'fire' the RT at the end of the phrase. Firing the RTs in the midst of legato transitions makes no sense to me at al :shock: l. 

Actually, RT would have been included in V150 of SIPS but at the time I wrote it, Nils and I were involved in a joint effort to make SIPS and his VXF script compatible. Since, the VXF script already had RT triggering, I didn't want to also add it to SIPS because it would have then been redundant. The idea is that if you want RTs, you could simply place the VXF script after SIPS. V150 of SIPS has all the special code needed to interface with the VXF script so everything would have been cool.

Unfortunately, Nils has gotten so busy that he hasn't yet found the time to upgrade the VXF to work with SIPS (and that leaves SIPS without RT capability). I guess if Nils doesn't get the VXF updated by the time I'm ready to release V2 of SIPS, I may re-consider including RT triggering (redundant or not).



> I tried to use SIPS while the RTs were disabled and what I got was silence altogether.



The devil here must be in the details because this doesn't seem reasonable. Somehow it sounds like you 'threw the baby out with the bathwater' :lol: 

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## zaster (Aug 9, 2007)

Big Bob @ Thu Aug 09 said:


> The devil here must be in the details because this doesn't seem reasonable. Somehow it sounds like you 'threw the baby out with the bathwater' :lol:



This is all I'm trying to figure out how to do. I started this thread looking for a workaround, not trying to get you to make SIPS all of a sudden RT compatible! :D All I want is some way of doing the 2 things at the opposite times- engaging SIPS while RTs are off and vica-versa. This is what I did- I have just 2 groups, the main one and the RTs. I set Group Starts Options for the RT group to CC64 <65. That works as expected- I step on the pedal and the RTs stop being used at all. In the Groups panel, I can see activity (highlighted names) for the both the regular and RT groups when the pedal is up, but only the regular when the pedal is down. So far so good. So then I do this- put SIPS in the script slot. In the SIPS interface, I go to the CC Menu on the far right and choose CC# 64. (I have to step on it once and let go) Then, with the pedal not pressed down, the instrument is playing its release tails and SIPS says "Legato off", as it should. But when I press on the pedal, SIPS says "Legato Mode", and all sound disappears. In addition, in the Groups panel, I can see that no activity is reaching the groups at all. The up pedal half of the equation works exactly the same as before I loaded the SIPS , but when the pedal is down, no groups highlight. I see the midi input indicator responding on the main panel, but no sign of life past that.


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 9, 2007)

Hi Z

Which version of SIPS?
Which version of K2? Standalone or as a plugin?
In Instrument Options, which mode are you using for CC64?

As you can see there are still lot's of details not specified :wink: . I know it's tedious, but, you can never supply too much detail. 

Can you produce this problem with one of the K2-supplied VSL instruments? If so, I could try to set it up here and see if I can repro your problem but, I will need all the gory details. And, since I won't have your host sequencer, you would have to demo the problem in the standalone mode. Also, I only have K2.2.3 at this point. To be continued?

Bob

BTW When you say SIPS (Solo Instrument Performance Suite) do you mean that you are using both the SLS and SVS? Or are you just calling the legato script SIPS?


----------



## zaster (Aug 9, 2007)

Big Bob @ Thu Aug 09 said:


> Which version of SIPS?
> Which version of K2? Standalone or as a plugin?
> In Instrument Options, which mode are you using for CC64?


SIPS: most recent, 1.50
K2: 2.2.1 same behavior in both standalone and plugin
CC64: Controller only



> When you say SIPS (Solo Instrument Performance Suite) do you mean that you are using both the SLS and SVS? Or are you just calling the legato script SIPS?


Just the legato. I didn't need vibrato in this case.


> Can you produce this problem with one of the K2-supplied VSL instruments? If so, I could try to set it up here and see if I can repro your problem but, I will need all the gory details. And, since I won't have your host sequencer, you would have to demo the problem in the standalone mode.



I will look in the K2-supplied instruments for something with RTs and try the same thing and get back to ya shortly.

EDIT:
OK, I just did it, same exact sequence of steps as outlined above (don't forget to change the CC64 mode to controller only) with *Violin Ens 14 (Sustain + RLS)* in Kontakt VSL Instruments> 01 Violin Enemble > 03 Release Triggers. The results are identical to what I descibed.


----------



## sbkp (Aug 9, 2007)

I assumed you were talking about EWQLSO's use of RTs for ambience. In that case, excluding SIPS for the moment, if you don't play the RTs for the inner notes, you get a sound that is very odd -- there's no reverb on inner notes, and there is reverb on the last note. That's not what anyone wants if they're going for a realistic sound. If you put SIPS back in that situation, you still end up with something that sounds very strange in terms of ambience, but it has nice legato now


----------



## sbkp (Aug 9, 2007)

Oh, here's the direct link to the audio sample I mentioned: 

http://media.stefanpodell.com/audio/release_last_note.mp3 (http://media.stefanpodell.com/audio/rel ... t_note.mp3)


----------



## zaster (Aug 9, 2007)

sbkp @ Thu Aug 09 said:


> I assumed you were talking about EWQLSO's use of RTs for ambience. In that case, excluding SIPS for the moment, if you don't play the RTs for the inner notes, you get a sound that is very odd -- there's no reverb on inner notes, and there is reverb on the last note.


I don't fully understand this because when I've used SIPS on EWQL Gold (which isn't exactly reverb, as I see it, but the "Full Mic" position) it still sounds like those mics, ie, not any closer. Disabling the RTs on Gold patches doesn't kill the room "reverberence". To my ears, having overlapping RTs (*ends* of notes ringing out in the same room) on notes that would be too close together to naturally ring out makes an excessive build of unnatural sound wheras having RTs only on phrase endings sounds more realistic. Basically I would like to cut off the attack and release in the places where they are too much without getting into some tedious sample by sample editing.


----------



## zaster (Aug 9, 2007)

sbkp @ Thu Aug 09 said:


> Oh, here's the direct link to the audio sample I mentioned:
> 
> http://media.stefanpodell.com/audio/release_last_note.mp3 (http://media.stefanpodell.com/audio/rel ... t_note.mp3)



In this case, the main part of the sample sounds a lot "closer" than the patches I'm referring to. It's obviously a problem. But it could be tweaked- For example, if this were an EWQL Platinum patch, you could pull up the close mics on the RTs and mix in more of the distant mics on the inner parts to balance it out. Or, in Gold, the RTs could be shortened and the whole thing treated with some more reverb. It would depend on the setting what you could get away with, but to my ears, attacks and releases in places where they don't belong are dissappointing enough that I would try to figure something out.


----------



## sbkp (Aug 10, 2007)

It's a patch from Gold.

I don't understand where the confusion is around reverb on inner notes. If you play C and D staccato in a hall with (for example) four seconds of reverb, there will be four seconds of reverb on the C and on the D. If you play C and D connected, there will be four seconds of reverb on the C and on the D.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the suggestion that RTs should be removed from the inner notes in a phrase seems to be saying that reverb only occurs in a natural space when notes aren't connected.

Now, I do get the distinction that you don't want to have the _instrument's_ release to occur in inner notes. I agree with that. But ambience is something else. Libraries that use RTs for ambience either have to have them all removed or none of them removed. Not somewhere in between.


----------



## sbkp (Aug 10, 2007)

Here are two audio files made like so:

Using VSL's horn (with sampled legato), play two connected notes into a 20 second reverb. Capture and normalize (to make it loud enough to hear easily). This capture goes from about 9 seconds to 14 seconds.

Do the same with two disconnected notes.

Obviously they sound different. But I don't hear any less of the first note in either example. I suspect the difference actually comes from the presence of an attack on the second note, rather than the absence of a release on the first note. But that's just a guess.

http://media.stefanpodell.com/audio/rev1.mp3
http://media.stefanpodell.com/audio/rev2.mp3


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 10, 2007)

> I know the reverb will be different in those cases. But the reverb from the first note won't be absent in the legato case.



I don't deny this, never have. But, the problem is not when or whether to trigger release samples but rather what to do about 'wet' samples when you want to artificially change their apparent 'connection'. When trying to crossfade two samples, the one fading out is at a different point in the 'reverb' time profile than the sample fading in. Thus manipulating samples by trying to cut them up and put them back together differently is bound to 'mess up' the reverb.

You probably already know that I am an advocate of recording samples dry in the first place. When the samples are dry, you can much more convincingly cut and paste pieces together. Once you have the dry-sample surgery sounding reasonably authentic (but of course dry), you can then add the hall. Now, to the extent that you can create authentic-sounding reverb after the fact, this approach is far superior. Of course there is nothing quite like the reverb of a good hall but, as convolution techniques improve, the difference may soon become vanishingly small.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Zaster, here's a little more info on your problem. It's unique to V150/V151 unfortunately. I haven't pinned down just what the problem is (although it may be related to the messenger note 0 traffic of the ISCS used since V150).

In the meantime, you can try using V110 but there will be two complications. One is that prior to V150, SIPS uses CCs 'exclusively' (for lack of a better term). This means that if you assign CC64 to control the SLS Mode, CC64 will not propagate beyond the SLS script slot (and therefore won't reach K2).

This problem can be worked around by putting a simple script in slot 1 (and then put the SLS in slot 2). The script should contain code something like this:

*on controller*
``*if* ($CC_NUM = 64)
````set_controller(100,%CC[64])
``*end if*
*end on*

This code generates a CC100 message for each CC64 message. You would then assign the SLS Mode control to CC100 which will then let CC64 get through to K2.

The 2nd problem though relates to mode transitions. The SLS doesn't switch modes as 'gracefully' as V150 does (V150 has much special code devoted to note carryovers and such). For V110, you will probably have to set the K2 Instrument options for CC64 to both Pedal and Controller.

This work around may or may not bail you out but it's all I can offer until I fully understand the problem with V150. Even then, it's beginning to look like another peculiarity of K2 that we may or may not be able to work around. I'll keep you posted as things progress. Even though I'll probably have a giant headache by the end of the day, I really do thank you for reporting this. :o 

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 10, 2007)

> Obviously they sound different. But I don't hear any less of the first note in either example. I suspect the difference actually comes from the presence of an attack on the second note, rather than the absence of a release on the first note. But that's just a guess.



I think it's both. However since attacks are usually 'sharper', there is likely to be more transient energy created by the attack than the release, but, the release (unless it's a very slow fade out), will also create a transient burst in the reverb signal.

I guess I would summarize my feelings this way. IMHO If you only want to play the samples exactly as recorded (no shortening, lengthening, or other manipulations involving cutting and pasting), then by all means record them in the hall of your choice. However, if you want the flexibility to 'rearrange' the time-order of the samples and perform other musical manipulations to produce sounds not originally recorded, then, record the samples dry and add the best reverb you can *after the fact.*

Besides, I thought we agreed to disagree :lol: 

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## sbkp (Aug 10, 2007)

Big Bob @ Fri Aug 10 said:


> Besides, I thought we agreed to disagree :lol:



That's what I was doing: disagreeing! :lol: 

Maybe we've been talking about two different things. As I said a few posts ago, it seems to me that some people have been suggesting that the right thing to do with ambient release trails is to get rid of the ones for the inner notes and keep the one at the end. That will certainly give the wrong answer, imho. That's what the audio example was meant to show.

Best,
Stefan


----------



## zaster (Aug 10, 2007)

I wouldn't mind the "CC64 can't be used for both tasks" issue, if I could still use the great V 1.5. I mostly draw my CC information in the sequencer anyhow, so I could easily use a separate controller number for the RTs. But I'd rather not go to the older SIPS. Right now it looks like the best option is to make one patch with SIPS for inner lines and a separate one for end notes. I think I can set it up using banks (Only sample group1 + SIPS on patch 1 and the 2 group configuration on partch 2) with some controller/KS to switch between them.



Big Bob @ Fri Aug 10 said:


> Even though I'll probably have a giant headache by the end of the day, I really do thank you for reporting this.



You're the best as usual, sir! Thanks very much for the responses!


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 10, 2007)

Hi there Mr Z,

I found what is causing the problem and, as suspected, it's another WEIRD KSP anomaly :cry: . I'll be making a separate post outlining this problem for 'all you scripting kiddies' (as Nicki likes to say) but, for now, I'm going to attach a quick fix for the immediate problem in the form of V151X of the Legato script (as a .nkp file).

Even with V150, you may want to use a different controller to change the SLS mode because I notice sometimes the KSP reacts to the double function in the wrong order. When I get more time, I'll look into what I can do about this (if possible). In the meantime, you can just use the little slot 1 script I included in the zip file (or program your sequencer to send a different CC for the mode change function, as you suggested).

Please let me know if this seems to work out for you. I also want to verify that you are still running K2.2.1? If so, that means that this problem didn't just set in with the latest release of K2.2.3. I rarely test with RT instruments but I did when I integrated V150 with Nils' VXF script. However, his script (since it handles RTs) disables the KSP handling of RTs and that's why I didn't pick up on this problem during development. As I pointed out in an earlier post, if you disable release triggering for the RT group, the problem vanishes.

All in all this is indeed a very strange problem as you will see when I write it up.

God Bless,

Bob

EDIT: 8-15-07

I have replaced the temporary V151X file with a updated CC-Blocker Script. If you are using an instrument with RT groups, you can still use V150/V151 of SIPS but you must also put the CC/EP-Blocker Script in the last slot. This will resolve the former conflict with NI's 'secret' usage of EP3. You should now discard any copies you may have of the temporary V151X of the SLS.


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 11, 2007)

> When I get more time, I'll look into what I can do about this (if possible).


After reviewing the CC64 thing, my conclusion is that you should not assign CC64 to control any SIPS parameters. The reason is that V150 and up of SIPS disables the normal K2 handling of the sustain pedal and provides its own logic to handle sustains in a more integrated way. As a result of CC64's dedicated role for controlling the sustain function, assigning it for another purpose (such as controlling the SLS Mode) produces a number of conflicting scenarios.

Because of this, I'm going to remove CC64 from the list of assignable CCs in future versions of SIPS. In the meantime, please don't assign CC64 to control any parameters for V150/V151.

BTW. V151X should be viewed as a temporary band-aid for RT instruments. What I did was change the 'tagging' EP# from 3 to 2. However, when Nils gets his VXF updated, it will be expecting to see the SLS tags on EP3. If we change that to a different EP#, then V150 of SIPS will no longer be compatible with the 'new' VXF. On the other hand, if we don't change the EP#, then SIPS cannot run standalone with RT instruments. Nils and I will have to kick this around to decide the best way to work around this latest KSP feature. But, I suspect the best thing to do at this point might be to change the EP# for tagging and simply release V152 of SIPS. Then when Nils gets his VXF updated you will need to use V152 or higher of SIPS to be compatible with it.


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 11, 2007)

sbkp @ Fri Aug 10 said:


> Big Bob @ Fri Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, I thought we agreed to disagree :lol:
> ...



There are really two issues involved here. My contention is that only triggering the release sample at the end of a legato phrase *is the most logical way to use release samples*. When this doesn't sound good, it's not because the idea is flawed, rather it's because when samples are recorded with too much room ambience there is a 'dip' in reverb at the artificial note connection points. But suggesting that this can be fixed by triggering the 'reverb-heavy' release samples somewhere in the middle of the legato connection is nonsense.

I think it is important to distinguish between release samples themselves and reverb tails. Instruments recorded dry can still benefit from release samples because they provide a way to make a more natural-sounding note closure. I maintain the success or failure of most artificial note manipulation schemes will often hinge on whether or not the samples contain too much reverb. When the samples are dry, you can do ever so much more with them. The only downside that I'm aware of is the supposed deficiency of adding reverb after the fact. Compared to how 'messed up' the recorded reverb gets when trying to simulate legato transitions, I think the difference between a good 'after the fact' reverb and the 'real thing' is a small price to pay.

I doubt very much that there really is any satisfying way to produce an artificial legato connection with samples that are recorded with too much reverb. If you find a way to trigger release samples in the midst of legato crossfades that sounds good to you, by all means use it. But, for my money, give me dryer samples and let me add the reverb when I'm done manipulating the transitions.

All the above of course is qualified by IMHO :wink: 

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## rJames (Aug 11, 2007)

I want to pipe-in on this (but I promise not to make a big discussion out of it)

I believe the way to use SIPS with a library that has release tails (EW in my case) is to lower the volume of the release tails. (not to delete them entirely)

I use SIPS in all my woodwinds where I feel I really need legato. (sometimes I'll add a second violin patch with SIPS)

Your assessment that the void of the release tail sounds bad is true. When you add lots of externall reverb to make up for the loss, you have doubled the reverb on the sample (but corrected what is on the tail)

The optimal solution to me would be a way to lower the volume on the release tails on the fly as the legato is implemented. When the note is not "connected" the release tail volume would be 100% of its setting. When it IS connected it would be controllable by a percent loss (50% of current setting)

IMHO turning off the release tails to use SIPS sounds terrible.

I'm back on 1.5 cause the new one is not working for me.

It is an awesome tool!! thanks again.


Big Bob @ Sat Aug 11 said:


> sbkp @ Fri Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Bob @ Fri Aug 10 said:
> ...



There are really two issues involved here. My contention is that only triggering the release sample at the end of a legato phrase *is the most logical way to use release samples*. When this doesn't sound good, it's not because the idea is flawed, rather it's because when samples are recorded with too much room ambience there is a 'dip' in reveròäþ   ^Ó¦äþ   ^Ó§äþ   ^Ó¨äþ   ^Ó©äþ   ^Óªäþ   ^Ó«äþ   ^Ó¬äþ   ^Ó­äþ   ^Ó®äþ   ^Ó¯äþ   ^Ó°äþ   ^Ó±äþ   ^Ó²äþ   ^Ó³äþ   ^Ó´äþ   ^Óµäþ   ^Ó¶äþ   ^Ó·äþ   ^Ó¸äþ   ^Ó¹äþ   ^Óºäþ   ^Ó»äþ   ^Ó¼äþ   ^Ó½äþ   ^Ó¾äþ   ^Ó¿äþ   ^ÓÀäþ   ^ÓÁäþ   ^ÓÂäþ   ^ÓÃäþ   ^ÓÄäþ   ^ÓÅäþ   ^ÓÆäþ   ^ÓÇäþ   ^ÓÈäþ   ^ÓÉäþ   ^ÓÊäþ   ^ÓËäþ   ^ÓÌäþ   ^ÓÍäþ   ^ÓÎäþ   ^ÓÏäþ   ^ÓÐäþ   ^ÓÑäþ   ^ÓÒäþ   ^ÓÓäþ   ^ÓÔäþ   ^ÓÕäþ   ^ÓÖäþ   ^Ó×äþ   ^ÓØäþ   ^ÓÙäþ   ^ÓÚäþ   ^ÓÛäþ   ^ÓÜäþ   ^ÓÝäþ   ^ÓÞäþ   ^Óßäþ   ^Óàäþ   ^Óáäþ   ^Óâäþ   ^Óãäþ   ^Óääþ   ^Óåäþ   ^Óæäþ   ^Óçäþ   ^Óèäþ   ^Óéäþ   ^Óêäþ   ^Óëäþ   ^Óìäþ   ^Óíäþ   ^Óîäþ   ^Óïäþ   ^Óðäþ   ^Óñäþ   ^Óòäþ   ^Óóäþ   ^Óôäþ   ^Óõäþ   ^Óöäþ   ^Ó÷äþ   ^Óøäþ   ^Óùäþ   ^Óúäþ   ^Óûäþ   ^Óüäþ   ^Óýäþ   ^Óþäþ   ^Óÿäþ   ^Ô äþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ô	äþ   ^Ô
äþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ô äþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ô              òäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ôäþ   ^Ô äþ   ^Ô!äþ   ^Ô"äþ   ^Ô#äþ   ^Ô$äþ   ^Ô%äþ   ^Ô&äþ   ^Ô'äþ   ^Ô(äþ   ^Ô)äþ   ^Ô*äþ   ^Ô+äþ   ^Ô,äþ   ^Ô-äþ   ^Ô.äþ   ^Ô/äþ   ^Ô0äþ   ^Ô1äþ   ^Ô2äþ   ^Ô3äþ   ^Ô4äþ   ^Ô5äþ   ^Ô6äþ   ^Ô7äþ   ^Ô8äþ   ^Ô9äþ   ^Ô:äþ   ^Ô;äþ   ^Ô<äþ   ^Ô=äþ   ^Ô>äþ   ^Ô?äþ   ^Ô@äþ   ^ÔAäþ   ^ÔBäþ   ^ÔC


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 11, 2007)

> I went back to the one that was working for me and couldn't use your latest.



I guess that means you went back to V105? But, have you tried the 'patched' version (151X) that I just posted to this thread yesterday?


----------



## rJames (Aug 11, 2007)

Yes, must be 1.05.

I haven't tried the patch version. Thanks, I will do so.

I've read your conclusions (above) about RTs more closely...

I don't want to open an old sore, but it would be disasterous to only play the RT at the end of a phrase.

You would be chopping off all of the natural room sound of the "legato" section.

Remember, as a note is played its reverberating echo is played only after it is played and it naturally decays (just like an RT)in the room.

The only "natural" sound that you miss by leaving the RTs in the middle of a legato run is the momentary rise or fall in the pitch associated with the legato connection.

The loss of this momentary rise or fall of the decaying echo, although necessary for a purely realistic reproduction, is minor in relation to losing the entire decaying sound of the notes in the legato run.

The options are;

the time value for any note (in any legato run) has no decaying echoes.
-or-
the time value for any legato connection (in any legato run) has no decaying echo.

The discussion of staccato notes from earlier in this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

because

the RT on a sustained note is different than on a staccato note (the staccato note was used only as an example for demonstration of how long reverberation takes on ANY note in a room that has a 4 second decay time) (you sort of made that into a straw dog argument IMHO)

No one believes that the reverb from a staccato note is the same as that on a portion of a legato interval but the theory is the same.

A legato interval of a quarter note will take 4 seconds to decay in the room that has a 4 second decay.

So, if you were to delete the RTs from every note in a legato interval, you would be deleting 4 seconds of decay from each note.

If you left the RTs on the legato notes, you would only be missing the 4 second decay of the "connecting interval"...a minor loss. But , yes it is important and would add to the illusion if it were there.

Bob, I don't want to contribute to any more aggravation, but I too am a bit flustered on our disagreement on this issue.

I'm with Stefan on this.


----------



## zaster (Aug 11, 2007)

WHOA Hold on a minute- rjames:
Would you confirm you are getting SIPS to work in some fashion even with Release Tails enabled? That's a *huge* part of this thread in the first place. So with SIPS engaged, when does the RT get triggered? After the crossfade out? I am very confused.

Also to Bob:
I'm surprised about what you say regarding CC64- I was of the opinion that when CC64 is set as Controller Only, it's just a switch same as any other. It has no "sustain" function. However, I like to use that number cause the keyboard pedal automatically goes there. It has always worked well for me to turn SIPS on and off. Please clarify what's wrong with it?


----------



## rJames (Aug 11, 2007)

Yes, v1.05 works quite well with RTs.
This version is one of the first that Bob wrote. In this version, he had a drop down menu in the section that concerns how the two sides of the legato interval fade into one another.

The option I use is to immediately trigger the RT as the end (keyup) of the first note.

What I try to do is to keep the overlap as small as I can to allow SIPS to recognize the overlap but to force the RT ASAP (you don't want a gap between the old note and its reverb.

The new note has its reverb already surrounding it within the sample. (Oh, yeah...use the Qlegato samples with SIPS because they don't have an attack per se and therefore they are much smoother in connecting)

Also, turn down the RTs only within the group that will be using SIPS.

I say that because I use keyswitches and the other articulations need to keep their RTs at the normal volume.

The lower volume on the Qlegato RTs tricks the ear to hear something in between the total lack of reverb for a split second and the strange timing (concerning RTs) that SIPS creates when joining two notes.




zaster @ Sat Aug 11 said:


> WHOA Hold on a minute- rjames:
> Would you confirm you are getting SIPS to work in some fashion even with Release Tails enabled? That's a *huge* part of this thread in the first place. So with SIPS engaged, when does the RT get triggered? After the crossfade out? I am very confused.
> 
> Also to Bob:
> I'm surprised about what you say regarding CC64- I was of the opinion that when CC64 is set as Controller Only, it's just a switch same as any other. It has no "sustain" function. However, I like to use that number cause the keyboard pedal automatically goes there. It has always worked well for me to turn SIPS on and off. Please clarify what's wrong with it?


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 11, 2007)

> I've read your conclusions (above) about RTs more closely...



I guess you didn't read it carefully enough :wink: . I was simply talking about the intelligent way to treat release samples *when the instrument has been sampled DRY*. I don't intend to even try to handle 'reverby' samples. I'll leave that for someone else to tackle. *When I use release samples, they'll be just as dry as my main samples and therefore I don't need to (nor do I want to) trigger them in the middle of a phrase.* I'll concede that, for a 'reverby' library, this approach will certainly leave much to be desired.

I don't own (nor do I intend to own) a 'reverby' library and therefore I have little incentive to work on this complication. Even if I just felt philanthropic and wanted to do it anyway, without a suitable 'reverby' library, what would I use to experiment with? Believe me, I can understand why owners of an expensive 'reverby' library would like to see some ad hoc mods made to SIPS in the hope that it can be made to sound better with their 'reverby' library. I can also understand why each of you feel you know 'just what to do' to solve this problem. If I seem to disagree, consider it merely an academic opinion, not a condemnation of your ideas.

Just because I express opinions that differ from some of you is really quite irrelevant. I'm not holding anyone back from implementing their ideas! Furthermore, even if I totally agreed, what could I do about it? My point here is that, as far as getting the job done is concerned, it doesn't really matter much who's right and whose wrong; I simply don't have what I would need to implement any of these ideas and I have little or no incentive to obtain what I would need.

So, once again let me say, let's just agree to disagree about the whys and hows of release sample triggering because I can't do anything about it anyway :lol: 

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## rJames (Aug 11, 2007)

Sorry, Bob. I thought you were responding to Zaster and Stefan about reverberant RTs.

My mistake.


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 11, 2007)

> I'm surprised about what you say regarding CC64- I was of the opinion that when CC64 is set as Controller Only, it's just a switch same as any other. It has no "sustain" function. However, I like to use that number cause the keyboard pedal automatically goes there. It has always worked well for me to turn SIPS on and off. Please clarify what's wrong with it?



With V150 and up, it makes no difference how you set the instrument options because the script overrides it anyway. As I already tried to explain, V150 handles the sustain logic instead of K2 (which didn't do it well enough to suit me). There are many uses for the sustain pedal such as allowing you to play a series of legato-connected notes of the same pitch (not to mention the usual uses for the sustain pedal). 

If you want to use CC64 for other things, then what would you use for these more or less 'standard' functions? If you don't need these standard functions of the sustain pedal, all you need to do is to put a small script in slot 1 that maps CC64 to some other CC# as I already illustrated with my CC64 -> CC102 script. Instead of CC102 perhaps you could use CC68 (which the MMA has designated as the 'Legato Footswitch'). I guess I don't understand why this is any kind of problem, considering the ease with which CC#s can be remapped these days.


----------



## zaster (Aug 11, 2007)

Big Bob @ Sat Aug 11 said:


> There are many uses for the sustain pedal such as allowing you to play a series of legato-connected notes of the same pitch (not to mention the usual uses for the sustain pedal).



I'm not familliar with this- is it particular to a certain library? When I load an instrument patch it usually has nothing assigned to the sustain pedal except the default Kontakt keyboard-style sustain (CC+Sustain) which I would never want for any patch in the strings/woodwind/horn categories. If there's some technique I'm missing (I'm still a little new to all this) I would love to know about it. Thanks again!


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 11, 2007)

zaster @ Sat Aug 11 said:


> Big Bob @ Sat Aug 11 said:
> 
> 
> > There are many uses for the sustain pedal such as allowing you to play a series of legato-connected notes of the same pitch (not to mention the usual uses for the sustain pedal).
> ...



Hey Mr Z,

I was referring to SIPS usage of the sustain pedal (not K2's). Please read page 15 of the V1.5 User's Guide for the details. (Shame on you if you haven't read my beautiful User's Guide  ).

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## zaster (Aug 12, 2007)

I did read it back when I first downloaded the script! Haven't memorized it though!  I'll go look- thanks!


----------



## Big Bob (Aug 12, 2007)

> Haven't memorized it though!



Aha! Then that's where you made your mistake :wink: All the rest of us *have* memorized it :lol:


----------

