# Beware of new K2-Player Instruments



## Big Bob (Jan 2, 2009)

Apparently at least some of the newer K2-Player Instruments are now *totally locked* :( . While these instruments can be loaded into and run in K2 or K3, they *cannot be edited*. With prior libraries (bundled with the K2 Player), the samples are usually ‘locked’ so they can’t be exported to an external editor. However, when such instrument files are loaded into K2/3, it is still possible to edit almost all parameters if desired (and even some sample manipulation is possible provided it can be performed by the Kontakt sample editor itself).

This is no longer true for some of the newer offerings. For example, Sample Modeling’s ‘The Trumpet’ and ‘Mr Sax T’ are *totally locked*. While they can be loaded into K2/3 and run, you cannot view or alter any more parameters than you can in the K2 Player itself. In other words, having the full Kontakt sampler gives you no more editing capability than you have with the ‘free’ player that comes with these instruments.

Personally, I always feel a bit helpless when I can’t tweak a few things and I know some of you will feel the same way. When I purchased ‘The Trumpet’ and ‘Mr Sax T’, I fully expected the samples and the scripts to be ‘off limits’ but I never dreamed that there would be a total lack of access.

This post should in no way be construed as a negative assessment of these instruments themselves. In fact, just the opposite is true. These instruments have truly made a giant leap forward with Virtual Instrument technology in both playability and realism. And, I can certainly understand the desire to keep some things proprietary and I can also understand that there might be a certain amount of fear that we’d just mess everything up if we were allowed to edit things willy nilly.

However, I think that if one releases a product as a Play-only offering, it might be more forthright if this was made clear at the outset. Saying that it can be loaded and played in the sampler is a true but misleading statement. In reading such a statement, most of us with the full sampler would probably assume that we can also do some tweaking as we have been able to in the past.

The fact that these instruments cannot be edited in K2/3 is disclosed in the documentation that comes with the instruments but if it was disclosed prior to purchasing, I must have missed it :? . What do the rest of you think? Am I making too much of too little? :roll: 

God Bless,

Bob

EDIT: Lest this come across as singling out Sample Modeling, I would like to clarify that for all I know, other instrument/library producers may also be doing this very same thing. In fact, this may well be the 'wave of the future' but I sure hope not. It did come as a surprise to me and I wish I had known about it sooner :roll: . Have any of you run into a similar experience with other products?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 2, 2009)

AFAIK it is the same with the Garritan Strad and Gofriller (go figure).


----------



## Thonex (Jan 2, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*

Bob... do you know if this is something that the developer decides or is it a new NI/Kontakt imposed limitation?


Thanks,

T


----------



## JustinW (Jan 2, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*



Thonex @ Fri Jan 02 said:


> Bob... do you know if this is something that the developer decides or is it a new NI/Kontakt imposed limitation?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> ...



It would _seem _to be a dev. decision, I mean, I can open all my other K2 player powered libraries, except products from said developer.

I *think *they are just trying to keep company secrets

Sorry I am not Bob, but I though I would chime in as well.


----------



## Big Bob (Jan 2, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*



> Sorry I am not Bob, but I though I would chime in as well.



Glad you did Justin because I didn't know the answer anyway :lol: But I too think making it a developer option is more likely. At least let's hope so and let's also hope not all developers opt to use it :roll: .

BTW Garritan's Personal Orchestra and JABB are not locked, at least mine aren't. Maybe it's only those instruments devloped in conjunction with the Sample Modeling group?


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 2, 2009)

This reminds me of the problem on the Sibelius site where nobody posts in .sib format for fear of copy theft. So all the compositions are presented in the inferior Scorch format and if you purchase a composition, its only in a print format. Crazy huh? When you can play .sib format back with VSL, EWQLSO, or Xsamples? Well, it seems to have just dawned on the Sibelius forum of composers that anyone can simply to a screen capture of their scores so all their efforts against copy-protection are rather moot.

I think sample developers may face a similar backlash if the trend towards proprietary players, uneditable samples, and fiendishly confusing copy-protection schemes continues. I've never run across a library I didn't want to edit in one way or another and not being able to do so is just an invitation to copy the sound of the samples and put them in an editiable format. I haven't tried it myself, although I've heard discussion of Redmatica and its great sampling benefits more than once on this forum. So samples that cannot be edited and where the player doesn't provide any added value (such as VSL VI does) seem like ripe candidates for the pickin.

I have not been discouraged from purchasing unprotected samples. In fact, my preference is for unprotected (and now sadly obsolete) GIGA samples as these provide me the most flexibility as a Kontakt user.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jan 2, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*



> I think they are just trying to keep company secrets



That's what i was thinking as well. It's a pretty innovating and new technology technology from what i can understand.


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*

I'm with Benjamin all the way. As a user I lament the trend to lock libraries, but if I was to release a library myself (which I'm not) I would definitely lock it too. Locking is the only way to protect your hard won knowledge from inquisitive competitors. When the first version of the Stradivari came out it was as an ordinary Kontakt 2 library. Only the script was locked. And I learned a lot from taking the rest of it apart :D 

But, as a user I want the ability to tweak and edit to my hearts desire. I have yet to buy a library, that works exactly as I would like it to. They all have their flaws and shortcomings. And it is for this reason I won't ever again buy a library, I can't edit. I did buy Stradivari 2, because Garritan promised me on NS, that I could load it in K2 and *edit* it. Oh boy, I was so pissed when I discovered that I couldn't edit it afterall and had to live with its ridiculous attacks. I never really used this library much. So, Bob, I fully agree with you, that developers should make it perfectly clear *before you buy*, if a library can't be edited.


----------



## lux (Jan 3, 2009)

imho it depends on the kind of patches involved. My perception is that the trumpet and mr sax include some new concepts in programming and structure of the patches that perhaps the authors would like to keep, at least for a certain amount of time, to establish a (probably deserved) competitive advantage.

On the contrary locking basic patches would sound just dull of course.

I completely agree that this should be stated pretty clearly to the purchaser.


----------



## Thonex (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*



Nickie Fønshauge @ Sat Jan 03 said:


> I did buy Stradivari 2, because Garritan promised me on NS, that I could load it in K2 and *edit* it. Oh boy, I was so pissed when I discovered that I couldn't edit it after all and had to live with its ridiculous attacks.



Yeah... what is it with those attacks? It's nearly impossible to write something slow and expressive with it.

But those guys (Tomassini and company) really know what they are doing!!


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*



Thonex @ 3rd January 2009 said:


> But those guys (Tomassini and company) really know what they are doing!!


One can only hope they learned their lesson with the Stradivari and Gofriller. What I don't understand is, why they never released a fix for the Stradivari attack. After all, practically everybody agree, that it is badly needed. That was a real confidence breaker for me.


----------



## Big Bob (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*

Hi All,

Thanks for all your input.

Please let me re-emphasize that I do understand the desire and possibly the need to protect innovative technology and if this requires keeping everything from prying eyes then so be it. However, I do think that the total lack of editability should be *clearly announced in advance*. We might be perfectly willing to buy the product as a play-only instrument but no one likes negative surprises. 

I can also understand why a developer would be hesitant to announce such a negative feature for fear of seriously hurting sales. But this is a rather small community (relatively speaking) and news, especially bad news, travels fast. In the long run I think it would be better to be 'up front' about this drawback.

This is an age-old problem of protecting one's investment versus antagonizing loyal users. It is indeed unfortunate that those of us who are honest and ethical (this includes developers and users alike) are made to suffer because of the rampant dishonesty in today's world. But, it is the reality of the situation, so I'm afraid we have to live with it.

However, I guess from now on, whenever we are thinking about purchasing a library or Instrument, we had better find out if it is editable or not *before we buy *(and then hope we are given the right information :? ).

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## Giorgio Tommasini (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*

Dear Bob,

Thanks for your appreciation.

As to your comments, let’s discuss the following:



> However, I think that if one releases a product as a Play-only offering, it might be more forthright if this was made clear at the outset. Saying that it can be loaded and played in the sampler is a true but misleading statement. In reading such a statement, most of us with the full sampler would probably assume that we can also do some tweaking as we have been able to in the past.
> 
> The fact that these instruments cannot be edited in K2/3 is disclosed in the documentation that comes with the instruments but if it was disclosed prior to purchasing, I must have missed it :?



I’m happy you acknowledge that this is a true statement. As to the fact that it may be misleading, and only disclosed in the documentation which comes with the instrument, please note the following:

From Samplemodeling™ webpages,

http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/products_trumpet.php :
“This is not a library, and no additional sampler or player is needed. The Trumpet is a Kontakt Player 2 Virtual Instrument, working either standalone, or as a plugin (VST or RTAS for the PC) and VSR, RTAS or AU for Mac.”

http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/products_sax.php:
“Like the Trumpet, Mr. Sax T is not a library, and no additional sampler or player is needed. Mr. Sax T. is a Kontakt Player 2 Virtual Instrument, working either standalone, or as a plugin (VST or RTAS for the PC, and VSR, RTAS or AU for Mac).”

http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/files/Mr_Sax_T_Short_Users_Guide.pdf (http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/files/ ... _Guide.pdf) (freely accessible to anyone).
The instruments can be also loaded and played in Kontakt 2 (vers.2.2.4.001 or higher), yielding virtually identical performances. Please note, however, that it cannot be opened or modified, and no access to the samples or instrument programming is provided.

These statements make clear that expectations to get access to scripts, programming and samples are unfounded. This applies to any virtual instrument. Can anybody examine or modify the programming of Pianoteq, Real Guitar, Arturia Brass, Wivi, or Synful, just to mention a few? 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our instruments involve complex interactions among samples, phase-preserving technologies, nki programming and script programming. Individually acting on any of these elements would activate a domino effect, yielding catastrophic results. This prevents any tweakability at the user’s level.

Conversely, Samplemodeling™ has been listening to the users feedback. We provided free updates, correcting reported limitations and introducing new features. This is in our opinion, a serious and honest approach. 

Giorgio, Stefano & Peter


----------



## Thonex (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*



Giorgio Tommasini @ Sat Jan 03 said:


> Conversely, Samplemodeling™ has been listening to the users feedback. We provided free updates, correcting reported limitations and introducing new features. This is in our opinion, a serious and honest approach.



Excelent!!!

This is "KEY" in a closed architecture instrument. 

Cheers for coming around here... and don't be a stranger... we'd be more than happy an answer any scripting questions you may have :D ... well... maybe Nils and Big Bob... and a few others could :lol: 

T


----------



## Big Bob (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*

Giorgio, Stefano & Peter,

Thanks for your response (and enlightenment).



> Our instruments involve complex interactions among samples, phase-preserving technologies, nki programming and script programming. Individually acting on any of these elements would activate a domino effect, yielding catastrophic results. This prevents any tweakability at the user’s level.



One only has to play one of these instruments for a short while to realize that you guys have indeed accomplished some amazing feats of legerdemain. So I fully appreciate what you have done and I'm sorry if my posts didn't convey that adequately. The fact that these instruments are 'locked' in no way subtracts from the superb accomplishments you have made.

I also didn't realize that the User's Guides were available *before* purchase. However, I did try to allow for the fact that I might have missed any declaration of the non-editable nature of the instruments (I often do miss things these days :lol: ). Nevertheless, I do feel that since fully locked instruments are now possible, the user community needs to know that things may be changing in a way that they didn't anticipate.



> Conversely, Samplemodeling™ has been listening to the users feedback. We provided free updates, correcting reported limitations and introducing new features. This is in our opinion, a serious and honest approach.



I agree with Andrew that your last statement is vital. One of the main reasons that most users want editability is not so much because they want to 'do their own thing' but rather because they have gotten stuck with Instruments that have one or more defects that the developer has ignored or refused to correct. In such a case, user tweaking is the only 'court of appeals'. No matter how difficult or dangerous it may be to undertake (a backup copy of the files may help though 8) ), I guess we look at it as a 'safety net' that we're reluctant to give up. 

Perhaps if you make good on your promise to listen to users and make timely corrections as needed (and aren't they always needed?), the prospect of locked, play-only instruments may not seem so undesireable anymore. I guess time will tell but in the meantime, I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the idea.

But, to end on a positive note, I don't want anyone to think that I'm not impressed with what you guys have accomplished technologically and musically in the advancement of Virtual Instruments. 'The Trumpet' is nothing short of fantastic and I highly recommend it to anyone (with the caveat that you cannot edit it in the usual sense). To their credit, Sample Modeling did provide access to many of the more subtle parameters via several panels full of virtual knobs.

So, hat's off to Giorgio, Stefano & Peter (and of course Nils for his excellent scripting) and I'm sure we all look forward to what's coming next.

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## P.T. (Jan 3, 2009)

I really dislike the Kontakt Player.
Some instruments have adsr and some other needed controls, but many don't.

Without full disclosure I don't intend to purchase anymore libraries that use this player.

I have been considering getting the full Kontakt 3 but now I don't think I will.


----------



## P.T. (Jan 3, 2009)

Why would a developer leave off an ADSR? It seems ridiculous.

Give us a quick attack and an ADSR so that we have some options.

Also many instruments have no mono mode, just the ability to reduce polyphony to 1. That is not the same. I want to be able to do continuous hammer on pull offs with or without re-triggered attack. 

Can't these functions be included without giving away trade secrets?


----------



## PolarBear (Jan 3, 2009)

P.T. did you already try to email them a feature request?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 3, 2009)

P.T. @ Sat Jan 03 said:


> Why would a developer leave off an ADSR?



Perhaps because ADSR is not an option on real instruments but on synths?


----------



## Thonex (Jan 3, 2009)

P.T. @ Sat Jan 03 said:


> Also many instruments have no mono mode, just the ability to reduce polyphony to 1. That is not the same. I want to be able to do continuous hammer on pull offs with or without re-triggered attack.
> 
> Can't these functions be included without giving away trade secrets?



Hi P.T.... and welcome to the forum :D 

Actually, monophonic mode can in fact be very complicated to incorporate in some complex instruments. Many things such as layers, release groups, transition samples, combined in a unique way may indeed make a patch difficult to turn into a "monophonic" type patch. Especially if you use the monophonic script included in Kontakt (as opposed to other means)... because there may be script conflicts.

But being a tweaker myself, I find it regrettable when developers lock the end user out of basic programming parameters.

T


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: Beware of new K2-Player Libraries*

Save .NKI with Samples: HALLELUJAH!

Edit Sample in external Editor: HALLELUJAH!

Batch process samples in external editor: HALLELUJAH!

Trim start times in external editor: HALLELUJAH!

Remove clicks, pops, crappy noises, downsample, upsample, denoise, eq, edit, chop, tune, level, limit, balance, pan, correct samples in external editor: HALLELUJAH!


----------



## P.T. (Jan 3, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Sat Jan 03 said:


> P.T. @ Sat Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would a developer leave off an ADSR?
> ...



I don't accept that.

You play the violin.
You are the adsr.

With samples, you are not playing the 'real instrument'. The fact that it is sample make it more like a synth.

If the sample has a fast attack the adsr allows it to be made into a slow attack.
Therefore, with just a fast attack sample you can play faster passages as well as sloe, legato style passages.

To just say that adsr isn't needed because real instruments don't have them misses the point and is severely restrictive from a playability standpoint.

The people complaining about the attack on the Stradivari in the above posts are making the same point. If there was an attack control then the attack on that violin would not be a problem, or as much of a problem.

When you play violin you can do a fast attack at volume and then ease up on the bow to give a lower sustained volume than the initial attack.

With a sample you would use a fast attack, set the decay for how quickly you wanted the initial attack to last before the volume dropped to the sustained volume of the held note. The sustain control would set the volume of the sustained portion.

Libraries come with staccato patches and legato patches with slower attack.
What if the slow attack isn't the speed that I want?
As a violinist, you can have any rate of swell that you want.
With ADSR I can have the rate of swell that I want instead of being contrained by the sample.

It's about flexibility and the users choices.


----------



## Big Bob (Jan 3, 2009)

Lest I sound like I'm arguing against myself with this post, let me emphatically state up front that *I would always prefer as much accessibility to an instrument as possible*. Even if you give me so much rope that I can hang myself with it :lol: .

However, in defense of Sample Modeling, we have to realize that their instruments are not another simple variation of what we have become accustomed to when we think of a sample-based instrument. For example, for all we know, there may not even be an AHDSR or other envelope generator involved :shock: . If that happened to be so, there would be little need to adjust it :wink: . Now I'm not saying that I think they don't use any envelopes but rather that we may have to alter our thinking a bit :roll: .

Keep in mind that their premise is that they are taking a radically different approach to creating realistic instruments. Perhaps their approach is more like that of physical modeling with the basic samples simply providing a more authentic timbre than that which is achievable with physical modeling alone. Conversely, the physical modeling part of what they are doing provides much more responsiveness and playability than what is usually provided by triggering samples and shaping them with an AHDSR.

As another example, we think of mulitple 'sampled' articulations and switching between them to provide some of the variations we hear coming from real instruments. But suppose you could build a Virtual Instrument with only one set of samples that could play a realistic staccato or a nice soft legato attack and everything in between. Would you be sad if there weren't mulitple sampled articulations? When a clarinetist wants to play staccato, he doesn't change to a different instrument than he uses when he plays legato. Similarly, if a virtual instrument can make all the sounds of the real thing, who are we to say it has to have a lot of sampled articulations?

My point in all the foregoing is that in the end, it comes down to how well a virtual instrument emulates the real thing, not in the details of how it does it. Of course we are all very curious about how it might be done, but, as far as the realism issue is concerned -- for all I care, they could have a tiny little man (or woman) inside the thing with a tiny little trumpet and a big amplifier :lol: .

I can tell you this, that whatever they are doing it is certainly providing some very realistic-sounding instruments with a lot of playability. I'm sure a lot of effort and ingenuity went into making this happen and one can certainly see why they would not want to disclose any more about the process than is absolutely necessary. This of course puts us all between two opposing forces. We wish these instruments could be 'open' so we could have our 'safety net', yet we owe Sample Modeling a lot for advancing the state of the art significantly.

In the end I think it will come down to this. If their instruments are vastly superior sounding and very playable (compared to the usual 'open' sampled instruments), I'm sure that sooner or later most of us will be willing to give up our 'safety net' in exchange for the gain in realism. Of course the 'sooner or later' part of the foregoing statement may be heavily affected by how error free their releases are and how responsive they are in providing any needed updates and corrections. I for one wish them every success because I want to see what they do with my Clarinet and Trombone :wink: . 

So once again, Happy New Year Everyone.

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## PolarBear (Jan 3, 2009)

Well, the 'safety net' being expanded by really generous users providing free alternatives even in case the support was or is good. That's not possible anymore if software is "closed". On the other hand, the bone of contention here is, that it is Kontakt driven and Kontakt has the possibility to open things usually. If it was a real synth providing the same realness in sound we wouldn't dare to ask about features to mangle with the software core ourselves, would we?


----------



## PolarBear (Jan 3, 2009)

P.T. so you think a forum post like yours is a proper way to distribute a feature request?


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 4, 2009)

Interesting thread.

Let me make a short comparison:

With a conventional library you get more or less articulations of an instrument. So, first you listen to all your artulations and then compose a line where you can use them, but not more! The only way to get your piece in the right direction is to edit and tweak here and there, for example with the ADSR. 

Isn`t this more a time steeling and modular principle and, if you have a small conventional library, do you not often feel as a slave from this lib because the less articulations?

The Samplemodeling trumpet is more a virtual-real instrument. You have to learn how to play it and then you do not need any sampled articulations, ADSR ore something else.  

_And at least there is also the possibility to edit your recorded audiofiles... . :mrgreen: _

Gunther


----------



## PolarBear (Jan 4, 2009)

Ah ok P.T., I see. Still, as you're missing it on all samplemodeling.com products, wouldn't it be interesting to see if they'd appreciate your idea when emailing it to them as a feature request? Maybe they can do something about it. Just an idea though.

For all others: Somehow I can see a parallel between the usual sampling business and playing a real or real-like instrument in this video about guitar hero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAo4uOGN-4Y


----------



## tfishbein82 (Jan 4, 2009)

germancomponist @ Sun Jan 04 said:


> The Samplemodeling trumpet is more a virtual-real instrument.


Yeah, and most people are happy with the playability and flexibility of that instrument. Especially because Samplemodeling released an update that addressed many concerns with the instrument.

But if you look at another example like the Solo Stradivarius, you know that there are huge problems with the programming of that instrument, and no update has solved those. Velocity sensitivity on attack is so bad that its virtually impossible to get a soft attack. And velocity sensitivity on transition is so bad that its difficult to consistent legato (avoiding too much portamento) with normal playing.

All parties involved in the instrument seem to have washed their hands of it. Giorgio - no longer affiliated with that; Gary - discontinued, will be replaced. To me, that's unacceptable. And since the instrument is locked, there's nothing customers can do about it.

I don't have a problem with libraries being locked and developers protecting their technological advances. But I have a problem when real issues in these locked libraries are not addressed by the developer.



TheoKrueger said:


> Save .NKI with Samples: HALLELUJAH!


Doesn't work when the library comes as monolith.


----------



## Big Bob (Jan 4, 2009)

> All parties involved in the instrument seem to have washed their hands of it. Giorgio - no longer affiliated with that; Gary - discontinued, will be replaced. To me, that's unacceptable. And since the instrument is locked, there's nothing customers can do about it.



This of course is just the kind of thing one fears the most. And, while I have been trying to be fair in presenting the developer's side of things, a completely locked instrument means that one can't even use the KSP to try to work around potential issues. Whereas, when only the samples and the scripts are locked, there are still usually a few script slots left for us to use. Even locked scripts can be moved around in the slots so if we need a pre-processing script in slot 1 and say slots 1, 2, and 3 are in use, we can move them to slots 2, 3, and 4 using the preset save and reload facility.

Unfortunately, with a completely locked instrument, the KSP also becomes off limits. I think this is another very serious problem, especially combined with something like an 'abandoned' instrument that's locked. Maybe NI needs to find a better way to protect a developer's interest without taking away all editing tools from users. This is a conundrum indeed. :roll: 

Sorry if I opened a can of worms with this thread, but .....


----------



## Giorgio Tommasini (Jan 4, 2009)

tfishbein82,

I really wouldn’t like to resume a discussion concerning the Stradivari Violin. However, for the sake of clarity, I feel I’ve got to chime in again.

1) consistency of opinions

tfishbein82 wrote: _“Velocity sensitivity on attack is so bad that its virtually impossible to get a soft attack. And velocity sensitivity on transition is so bad that its difficult to consistent legato (avoiding too much portamento) with normal playing”._

You may wish to have a look at this thread:
http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... stradivari


2) ridiculous attacks 

Nickie Fønshauge wrote: 

_“Oh boy, I was so pissed when I discovered that I couldn't edit it afterall and had to live with its ridiculous attacks.
One can only hope they learned their lesson with the Stradivari and Gofriller. What I don't understand is, why they never released a fix for the Stradivari attack. After all, practically everybody agree, that it is badly needed”._

This opinion was apparently not shared by authoritative members of the VI forums:

http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

You may also wish to have a listen to this demo, madeò·§   +©·§   +ª·§   +«·§   +¬·§   +­·§   +®·§   +¯·§   +°·§   +±·§   +²·§   +³·§   +´·§   +µ·§   +¶·§   +··§   +¸·§   +¹·§   +º·¨   +»·¨   +¼·¨   +½·¨   +¾·¨   +¿·¨   +À·¨   +Á·¨   +Â·¨   +Ã·¨   +Ä·¨   +Å·¨   +Æ·¨   +Ç·¨   +È·¨   +É·¨   +Ê·¨   +Ë·¨   +Ì·©   +Í·©   +Î·©   +Ï·©   +Ð·©   +Ñ·©   +Ò·©   +Ó·©   +Ô·©   +Õ·©   +Ö·©   +×·©   +Ø·©   +Ù·©   +Ú·©   +Û·©   +Ü·©   +Ý·©   +Þ·©   +ß·©   +à·©   +á·©   +â·©   +ã·©   +ä·©   +å·©   +æ·©   +ç·©   +è·©   +é·©   +ê·©   +ë·©   +ì·©   +í·©   +î·©   +ï·©   +ð·©   +ñ·©   +ò·©   +ó·©   +ô·©   +õ·©   +ö·©   +÷·©   +ø·©   +ù·©   +ú·©   +û·©   +ü·©   +ý·©   +þ·©   +ÿ·©   , ·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,	·©   ,
·©   ,·©   ,·©   , ·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,              ò·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   ,·©   , 


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Jan 4, 2009)

Giorgio Tommasini @ 4th January 2009 said:


> This opinion was apparently not shared by authoritative members of the VI forums:
> 
> http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=


Maybe people haven't expressed their discontent here at VI, but an awful lot of users, not demo listeners, have expressed their discontent on NSS over the years. Now, you may call all these people, incl. myself, unauthoritative if you like, but the fact remains, that this discontent exists and has never been addressed, let alone acknowledged by the Stradivari's developers. Trying to evade responsibilty of a flawed product does not make the flaws go away.

There's no question, thast the Stradivari and Gofriller can sound great if you edit the shit out of their MIDI data. But, such heavy editing should not be necessary with virtual instruments, that were marketed as "playable in real time". As tfishbein so accurately mentions, the real problem, at least with the Stradivari, is to reconcile attack velocity and legato velocity. You have to edit practically every note to achieve a decent result.



Giorgio Tommasini @ 4th January 2009 said:


> PS: the issue of the uncontrollable attacks was first reported when Kontakt3 was out. It has been subsequently verified by Native Instruments that K3 does not properly handle instruments created with K2. This is due to a different response of envelopes and LFOs. But this is another story....


 :roll: It has absolutely nothing to do with Kontakt 3. This issue was reported long before Kontakt 3 came out, and it was reported by users who used the Stradivari with KP2 and K2.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 4, 2009)

P.T. @ Sun Jan 04 said:


> Hannes_F @ Sat Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > P.T. @ Sat Jan 03 said:
> ...



P.T., maybe you underestimate my understanding of samples and synths.

With those virtual instruments you are the ADSR as well if you want to.


----------



## bsl (Jan 4, 2009)

...Perhaps somebody prefers conventional (unlocked) libraries...!!??!! :shock:


----------



## Thonex (Jan 4, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Sun Jan 04 said:


> You are the ADSR as well if you want to.



A looooong time ago, I visited the studio of the wonderful French composer Michelle Colombier. He had a beautiful API console in his home studio (in Beverly Hills)... and I asked him if it was equipped with automation... his response was classic...


"No.... I write dynamics in my parts!" :!: :!: :!: :lol:


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 4, 2009)

Giorgio, I am a huge fan of the Strad and Gofriller. For a demo maybe listen here if you like (only the cello part is played by me):

http://www.frischat.com/compose/HFrischat_RobertWeber_moonlight_cut.mp3 (http://www.frischat.com/compose/HFrisch ... ht_cut.mp3)

Nevertheless it is true, I always have to change the attacks one by one after the recording.


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 4, 2009)

Hannes...did you intend such an abrupt ending?

If that's the sharp ADSR cutoff, then point well taken.


----------



## koolkeys (Jan 4, 2009)

P.T. @ Sat Jan 03 said:


> Hannes_F @ Sat Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > P.T. @ Sat Jan 03 said:
> ...


If you were to use a normal ASDR on instruments like The Trumpet and Mr. Sax T, that would completely ruin the experience. With those instruments, you ARE the ASDR, just like in real life. The features of those instruments allow you to dynamically control the envelope of the samples in real time. An ASDR is so restrictive for real expressive instruments. There is NO good reason to include it in an instrument such as those two. 

Those instruments are focused on being as realistic as possible. Putting a synth ASDR in would completely defeat that purpose.

Brent


----------



## bsl (Jan 5, 2009)

Exactly Brent !
Expression = AAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSRRR........... :wink:
.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 5, 2009)

synergy543 @ Mon Jan 05 said:


> Hannes...did you intend such an abrupt ending?
> 
> If that's the sharp ADSR cutoff, then point well taken.



Hehe :mrgreen: 

I took only a snippet of the whole piece for a demo. Since somebody in this thread thought I would not even halfway know what I am talking about because of the violin in my hands I felt I should perhaps include this link in my comment for Giorgio.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 5, 2009)

Thanks for the thread guys, as I just bought a used K2.
I would have bought a new one but it appears as though K3 is the only choice at online stores.
I don't like the idea of an app w/ bugs and will upgrade at a later date.
But I am glad I know there are instruments that are locked.
I find that to be great as long as the developer has done a great job.
I have CHHorns 2.0 K2P and see no need to edit anything, but especially w/ string instruments I was so used to editing as it is an important option IMHO.
To not be able to edit is a 2 sided sword for developers. 
They can retain their valuable secrets, while losing sales. Too bad.

I guess I will have to demo everything I purchase knowing it is SOLD AS IS.
Thankfully there are many talented developers for Kontackt.
If this would have happened to me w/ my Giga Libraries I would have dumped it years ago.

Then again if they protection they might still be in business.
Thankfully Giga to K3 is said to be smooth.


----------



## Chris Hein (Jan 5, 2009)

Its all up to the developer:
Samples - Always locked
Script - Mostly locked
Edit - Sometimes locked.

I really don't like locked edit features and I see no reason behind that
except developers want to hide there secrets.

There is no risk in editing even complex instruments.
Just reload and everything is repaired again.

A Chris Hein - Guitars customer from UK reported, he deleted all samples
in one of the guitars, pasted some Balaleika samples from Ethno World
and used the CHG Chord-Mode to strum his Balalaika. 
I like that, thats why my libraries aren't locked.

I also like it when people learn from my Instruments and get inspired to create their own.

I'm standing on both sides. I'm a developer, but more than that I'm a composer
using sample libraries since 20 years.
First thing I do with EVERY new library I buy is to edit the instruments the way I need it.
I created some nice Mod-Wheel patches for SAM Horns and Trumpets, (if you want them, ask me)
I did the same with the first Kirk Hunter instruments.
I created instruments with Solo- Chamber- and Large Strings in one patch
to blend between them which has great effect if you want to point out a solo
violin during a sustain note
I delete unused samples, e.g. all the release samples in the EW orchestra, saves a lot of ram. 
I made my own percussion patches out of many different KP Libraries like Storm Drums, True Strike and others.
I ALWAYS remap drum libraries and I was very annoyed that Mixosaurus is locked.
Actually thats the reason why I never use it.

IMO thats the big advantage of the concept behind Kontakt and Kontakt-Player.
No need to compare that to other completely locked players.

I would never buy a locked library!
But, ok, I know how to handle Kontakt, if you don't, that may not matter.

Chris Hein


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 6, 2009)

Chris,

what you do with the libraries is the same what I always do too.

To edit the samples in "the trumpet" makes no sense. The trumpet works completely differently with their tons of samples than any other library. One has to play the articulations with the fine controllers, what gives you much more possibilities. 

But, about the conventional libraries, I agree with you 100%!

Gunther


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Jan 6, 2009)

germancomponist @ 6th January 2009 said:


> To edit the samples in "the trumpet" makes no sense.


To edit the samples makes no sense, that's correct, Günther, but to edit the way the samples are used could potentially make a lot of sense. I am not referring to the Trumpet, I don't own it and I don't know it, but in case of the Stradivari it would make a lot of sense to edit its envelopes. I just did it on the unlocked Stradivari 1.07 and it made a world of difference. Not being able to do this leaves you completely at the mercy at the developer.

Sample based virtual instruments use a different paradigm than conventional sample libraries, true, *but*, they are still based on static samples and it can make a huge difference how you use those static samples. It could and should be possible to accomodate individual temperaments and workflows like Chris just described it.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 6, 2009)

Nickie,

so far as I know there is not only one envelope in the trumpets`programming. One must create/built the envelopes while playing the trumpet and using the controllers... . Otherwise it would not be "sample-modeling". 

I think it is the same with the Stradivari, but am not sure, because its older programming... .


----------



## Chris Hein (Jan 6, 2009)

germancomponist @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> To edit the samples in "the trumpet" makes no sense. The trumpet works completely differently with their tons of samples than any other library. One has to play the articulations with the fine controllers, what gives you much more possibilities.


Gunther, I know you are a big fan of The Trumpet.
If the instrument is OK for you, thats fine.
If an instrument fits perfect with the features it offers, thats the best.
I'm glad if I don't have to open the editor, of cource I prefer perfect libraries myself,
but if I feel I could improve things, I'm glad to have the chence to do that.
Thats why I always prefer Kontakt based libraries.

The Trumpet is a great instrument, but there are some things I would like to change.
For the tons of samples, Even the smallest CHH instrument has more samples and 99 groups.
So, believe me, I know Kontakt better than I know my wife.  

Thats why the locked issue is relevant only for me and a small group of experts.

For Sample Editing, I found some staccato samples in the String Essentials Cello which had
1/2 a second silence before the sample. I jumped into the editor, located the samples,
shifted the start point, problem solved.
I could also have mailed support and wait for an update.

Chris Hein


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Jan 6, 2009)

germancomponist @ 6th January 2009 said:


> so far as I know there is not only one envelope in the trumpets`programming.


A bit difficult to "know" when you can't open the instrument to check it, isn't it Günther.  Unless, of course, you were a beta tester with access to the unlocked K2 file.


germancomponist @ 6th January 2009 said:


> I think it is the same with the Stradivari, but am not sure, because its older programming... .


Believe me, the Stradivari has envelopes. Version 1 can/must be opened in K2/3, where you can edit the envelopes. Version 2 is not available to anybody but beta tester to peek into, but it is using the same basic technology so rest assured it has envelopes too. And I would be very surprised to find, the Trumpet doesn't have them also, considering it seems to use the same basic technology.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 6, 2009)

Chris Hein @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> Gunther, I know you are a big fan of The Trumpet.
> If the instrument is OK for you, thats fine.
> If an instrument fits perfect with the features it offers, thats the best.
> I'm glad if I don't have to open the editor, of cource I prefer perfect libraries myself,
> ...



Hi Chris,

isn`t it time to change some things: Make sure knowing your wife better than Kontakt :mrgreen: 

Without joking, have you moved the CC21 - Attack-Controller in the String Essentials Cello? I remember that I once had a same issue and fixed it with CC-21.

I work with samplers since they are on the market and the locked issue is relevant for me too. But for me, not for the trumpet.  

Cheers o-[][]-o


----------



## Big Bob (Jan 6, 2009)

> To edit the samples makes no sense, that's correct, Günther, but to edit the way the samples are used could potentially make a lot of sense. I am not referring to the Trumpet, I don't own it and I don't know it, but in case of the Stradivari it would make a lot of sense to edit its envelopes. I just did it on the unlocked Stradivari 1.07 and it made a world of difference. Not being able to do this leaves you completely at the mercy at the developer.
> 
> Sample based virtual instruments use a different paradigm than conventional sample libraries, true, but, they are still based on static samples and it can make a huge difference how you use those static samples. It could and should be possible to accomodate individual temperaments and workflows like Chris just described it.



I agree with Nickie 100%. I think what it boils down to is that it is practically impossible to make an instrument 'perfect' before releasing it. So, there will be at least some minor problems that might easily be corrected (or at least 'worked around') when we have access to the editing tools available in Kontakt. 

Without the use of these tools, we are forced to wait for the developer to release an update or fix (which they may or may not actually do). Moreover, some of these 'minor' problems might become 'major' problems for certain users who might even be up against schedule pressures on top of it. Even though there are problems that no amount of user editing can correct, there are also lots of problems that a simple edit or two would correct.

For example, I can't tell you how often I have had to retune a sample zone or even eliminate a poor-quality sample zone entirely by stretching one of its higher-quality neighbors to cover it. I can think of dozens of different kinds of edits I have had to make to redeem an otherwise useless instrument. And then there is script pre-processing, which has more than once been able to 'save the day' for me.

The assertion that SM's instruments use a radically different architectural design doesn't obviate the value of being able to make edits. It may mean that there is a steeper learning curve involved before we can make *constructive* edits but then, we all know how to make a safety copy of an instrument before we start fiddling around with it. 

A totally locked instrument leaves us without any of these self remedies. So, while I can sympathize with a developer's desire to protect their investment, this has to be weighed against the sales resistance that is bound to arise once the word gets around that an instrument is locked. If the instrument is truly outstanding, many may still buy it (and there is always that class of user who never edits anything so, to them it won't matter). 

Again, I guess it comes down to how 'perfect' the instrument is in the first place (or rather how perfect a potential buyer perceives it to be) and what is the likelihood that any discovered problems will be corrected promptly. But, until developers build a better 'track record' for releasing nearly perfect instruments and promptly correcting problems, I personally feel far more comfortable buying instruments that allow me to use the editing tools available in Kontakt; even if these instruments don't have all the bells and whistles that a locked instrument might have.

All that being said, from what I have learned so far, 'The Trumpet' is nothing short of a fabulous accomplishment. o=< It's just too bad that it has to be locked. :cry: But, if buying a locked instrument doesn't bother you and, you need a very capable trumpet, by all means get this one. 

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 6, 2009)

As FABULOUS an great theTrumpet sounds, I can't understand why it is locked. Its not doing anything that can't already be done in Kontakt as it is. I *can* understand locking scripts, because those can be proprietary and unique to the developer after coding or hiring a coder to code them. But the actual patch programming? If its doable in K2 and loadable, then IMO its not proprietary at all. K2 already does it native, so seeing what the script doesn't show can't hurt. I really just don't get it. K2 ALREADY does it, so why hide that? So what if people see the group layout and the phase aligned samples. Fact is, most of the idea behind the patch programming has already been detailed on enough website to give any capable K2 programmer/tinkerer an idea of how to do it themselves if they wished. Phase aligned, lifeless (not being insulting with that term) samples being the base and all the life and emotion "modelled" using multiple evenloping techniques and scripted vibrato, portamento, whatever... in a nutshell.

I can understan the developers desire to keep people from editing the instrument and emailing Customer Support without thinking about the problem before wasting CS's time. Still, I think most people who tinker with Kontakt probably know it enough to make a back up or at least undo the change. For sure, all one has to do is close the instrument without saving if the said results are unsatisfactory. Even with this possibly being the case, I don't personally believe it a good enough reasons to lock patches. Not saying it is, mind you folk 

I really disagree with locking patches. I can understand the samples themselves as a "blindfold" of a larger problem, even though I disagree with that too since it doesn't stop piracy of locked sample content in the slightest, nor does it stop locked sample content from being dumped. Its just more hassle for legitimate users, and for much of nothing.

Just to clarify, this post is just my thoughts on the matter and in no way an attack on anyone, nor is it painting anyone in a negative light. I know the developers of Trumpet post here and I respect them immensely. They handle themselves well and I feel they're among the few who can join in a discussion without jumping to conclusions or attacking people who don't agree with their vision of sample development. Highly respectable folks.


----------



## Thonex (Jan 6, 2009)

Moonchilde @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> But the actual patch programming? If its doable in K2 and loadable, then IMO its not proprietary at all. K2 already does it native, so seeing what the script doesn't show can't hurt.



Actually, that's not entirely true. For example, the patch may rely heavily on ADHSRs whose attacks, release and perhaps other things may be controlled by the script.. making the ADHSRs "dynamic" so-to-speak. In which case the ADHSRS or Flex envelopes would "show" what the script is doing.. and could be duplicated. Or perhaps there are no envelopes (because maybe the script is doing all the fade_in/outs() ) ... either way, by locking the script and leaving the patch editor unlocked, one could well figure out what the script is doing and therefore the proprietary programming wouldn't be proprietary anymore.

Or what if the script opened a filter as opposed to an ADSR to change the attack of an instrument... or a combination of all the above. These could all be reverse engineered fairly easily if one knows Kontakt.

My guess is that the developer needs to weigh the sales based on tweakers vs non-tweakers. 

One thing about releasing a Locked Library... the developer can always open it later... but once you release it in open format... there is no going back.

Cheers,

T


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 6, 2009)

Thonex @ January 6th 2009 said:


> Actually, that's not entirely true. For example, the patch may rely heavily on ADHSRs whose attacks, release and perhaps other things may be controlled by the script.. making the ADHSRs "dynamic" so-to-speak. In which case the ADHSRS or Flex envelopes would "show" what the script is doing.. and could be duplicated. Or perhaps there are no envelopes (because maybe the script is doing all the fade_in/outs() ) ... either way, by locking the script and leaving the patch editor unlocked, one could well figure out what the script is doing and therefore the proprietary programming wouldn't be proprietary anymore.
> 
> Or what if the script opened a filter as opposed to an ADSR to change the attack of an instrument... or a combination of all the above. These could all be reverse engineered fairly easily if one knows Kontakt.



So what if it is a script or no doing the envelope? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Trumpet have user controlled everything? Either its custom scripted enveloping/vibrato/whatever. or its native. or a combo of both. Either way, its already known as is. Everything has been detailed on the Strad sites and I think even SM site has some info up about the phase aligned sample theory to describe how they acheive the wonderfu dynamics. Aren't there screenshots of the Trumpet's front end showing the controllers used to do all the nifty stuff anyway? You don't even need access to the patch to theorize whats going on under the hood once you're like Chris and know Kontakt better than your own wife. : D I'm sure many of the brilliant minds here already have a few hypothesis up their sleeves on how it is done.

Point is, I just don't think there is anything special about the patch programming itself that isn't already well known to knowledgable K2 users who really dive into K2. Scripts, on the other hand...


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 6, 2009)

Thonex @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> One thing about releasing a Locked Library... the developer can always open it later... but once you release it in open format... there is no going back.


Actually....VSL seems to have had quite good success going back to a locked format.

And EW (with the exception of a number of unhappy users) has gone from an somewhat editable system to an entirely uneditable system on the sample level without an uprising or screaming requests for editiability (although according to some rumors, those customers that speak up are quickly banned).

Whereas VSL has added good value, I still don't quite see as tremendous value PLAY added....although people seem to take what's offered to them rather tacetly in my opinion.

Without question though, the Trumpet does offer excellent playability as many have shown - so that should count for a LOT (compared to EW where there is no real legato nor chance to use SIPS).


----------



## Dynamitec (Jan 6, 2009)

Wow, what a interesting discussion this got! 

@Moonchilde, sorry but i really have to completely disagree. As soon as an instrument isn't locked you can also get the samples and start investigating the technology behind the samples (The Trumpet for example) . As soon as you can solo groups and zones you can go trough the samples looking what's going on. You could even record them and analyse them with an external waveeditor. 

You say, you can understand the locking of the scripts and I can only talk for myself, but locking the scripts is first of all not 100% save and second: if you know how the instrument is build and the samples work, you can "copy" the way the script work (as Thonex already wrote). It's not easy, but it's possible. So the script isn't really that important. These days the samples and the way they work together is much, much, much, MUCH more important! The Kontakt scripting is already on such a high level, that you almost can't get much more out of it. If you want more or new features you have to think of ways far beyond traditional sampling. And these new ways can be analysed and copied as soon as the instrument is open.

I'm also pretty sure that you don't fully understand what an important step "The Trumpet" and the mystery about the phase-alignment is. I can fully understand the developers do everything they can to keep this knowledge save. You really need to stop thinking that Kontakt is some kind of sampler, because in the hand of the right people it's more a framework for virtual instrument development.


----------



## bsl (Jan 6, 2009)

Can somebody explain the different between Virtual Instruments and Libraries ? 
:?:


----------



## Dynamitec (Jan 6, 2009)

I would say a Sampling Library is something much more static, than a Virtual Instrument. A Sampling Library needs much more work from the user (selecting the right articulations, choosing the release layer etc)., a Virtual Instruments dynamically adjust to the way it is played, just like a real instrument. 

But sometimes there is no difference


----------



## bsl (Jan 6, 2009)

Dynamitec @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> a Virtual Instruments dynamically adjust to the way it is played, just like a real instrument.


I Agree ! :wink:
.


----------



## Big Bob (Jan 6, 2009)

> If its doable in K2 and loadable, then IMO its not proprietary at all. K2 already does it native, so seeing what the script doesn't show can't hurt.



Point well taken but, while on the surface this seems logical, keep in mind that you can do a lot of things in K2 and the combinations of things you can do are almost endless. To illustrate this idea, suppose I said that anything that can run on a PC must use the instruction set of the microprocessor and therefore, there can be nothing proprietary about any program. Surely we know better than that. So if SM has come up with some very clever usage combinations, having an open instrument would allow the world to at least see the general strategy, and there goes the 'leg up' on the competition.

Besides the usual things we think of with sample playback, what about the convolution processor. Suppose for example that some of the physical modeling tricks SM is doing rely on special impulse files, etc. While it may be possible to protect the impulse files themselves, if you can examine the effect they contribute to the sound (which you could do with an open instrument) you may be able to 'de-convolve' :lol: your way to figuring out what is going on.

So I have to agree with NIckie, Andrew, and Benjamin that a lot can be learned forensically about what SM is doing once the instrument is unlocked. Even if the sample files, the scripts, and the impulse files are sealed up tight. So if they really want to protect their novel ideas, they must keep prying eyes out. Of course much can also be deduced by simply playing with the instrument from the outside, but, if your purpose is to produce a rival product, you will at least be slowed down a little (compared to an unlocked instrument).

If I seem to be working both sides of the street on this issue it's because in a sense I am. I am simply trying to see it from both the develper's and the user's point of view. And, unfortunately, like most Catch-22 situations, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to satisfy both factions in a comfortable way.



> My guess is that the developer needs to weigh the sales based on tweakers vs non-tweakers.



No truer words were ever spoken Andrew, the only hitch as I see it is how we define tweakers and how we commercially estimate the fraction of each that we will be dealing with. 

I guess time will tell how this will play out but one thng is for sure, there seems to be considerable interest in and a diversity of opinions regarding this subject :wink: .

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## Chris Hein (Jan 6, 2009)

Thonex @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> One thing about releasing a Locked Library... the developer can always open it later... but once you release it in open format... there is no going back.


Haha, good point, but not true, as far as I know
While the script is locked via password which you could tell evrybody,
you have to ask NI to encode the .nki files again if the edit button is locked.
:-(
As a developer you can't even open your own encoded instruments to make bug fixes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, this info is 1/2 year old, maybe it has changed.

Chris Hein


----------



## Thonex (Jan 6, 2009)

Chris Hein @ Tue Jan 06 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, this info is 1/2 year old, maybe it has changed.
> 
> Chris Hein



Hi Chris (love your stuff)

Yeah... I don't regarding the changing of locked status. WHat I mean is... you can't un-ring a bell :wink:


----------



## Chris Hein (Jan 7, 2009)

Thonex @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> Hi Chris (love your stuff)
> 
> Yeah... I don't regarding the changing of locked status. WHat I mean is... you can't un-ring a bell :wink:


Thanks Thonex,
I got you, but you said 'the developer can open it later', I thin you can't un-ring this bell either. (nice phrase)

How about this:
Two prices for a locked and a un-locked version.
Have a regular price or the library and pay extra for a version with open edit features?


Chris Hein


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 7, 2009)

Great idea :roll: :mrgreen: o/~ 

Gunther


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 7, 2009)

Yeah That's the ticket.
I like the Intel approach too. :D 
Just like the unlocked multiplier versions.

Chris I bought Kontackt 2 just so I could use the Soprano sooner.
I have tried the nki. trick to no avail.
Will you have all of your Guitar and Bass libraries handy at the East/Weat booth at NAMM?
I have a one hour break must pick your brain.

Thanks In Advance,

JimmyV.


And BTW Hans your intonation is beautiful. Much more realistic than these perfect Virtual recordings could ever be. But they are a great cheap way to do a mock up.


----------



## Chris Hein (Jan 7, 2009)

chimuelo @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> Will you have all of your Guitar and Bass libraries handy at the East/Weat booth at NAMM?
> I have a one hour break must pick your brain..


Sure, thats why I'm there. 
Looking forward to see you at the EastWest booth.

Do you know if there is free WiFi at NAMM?

Chris Hein


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 7, 2009)

In California nothing is free, unless you break their laws, then you can have free Health care, your choice of cable access, college tuition, etc. /\~O 

I need a good live Lead Guitar so I can stop using Solaris.

Here's an example of why.

http://www.planetz.com/forums/download/file.php?id=4285

Just a fast stereo take. I have to cover rhythm Guitar parts and double leads especially in the Fusion numbers we do. In this mock up a Physically Modelled Guitar using an Excellent Amp Modeller is fine, but my static Acoustic Libraries and decent lead sounds are lame. I never thought I would have to cover so many differnt styles and sounds, but your Sections made that such a breeze I can only assume your Guitars will be equally impressive.

I think if you ask the overpaid Union Teamsters that help set up the booth they could juice you in to easy access somewhere at the show. 
They will stand around waiting for a Tip when the booth is set up, and that's the perfect time to ask. Just keep the 10 spot in your hand as you ask where the free WiFi connections are.


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 7, 2009)

My point is that the Trumpet has already been detailed enough with public information that keeping the patch file locked really won't help. Think about it. We already know the phase aligned sample are used for perfect crossfading. That is the first and most important step. Then you would just need to figure out if they're stripped of body with it added in via convolution or if that is built into the samples. Next, is all the playing is handled by controller message, as seen on the GUI. Stuff such as, vibrato, since the phase aligned samples must have NO vibrato or it defeats the purpose.

As I wrote earlier, it makes no difference whether or not the envelope techniques and all that other stuff is done by scripting or natively, With automation, you can set controllers up to do just about anything witout scripting if you wish, however, scripting allows you to do things differently than the way K natively does it. Either way, both could have similar results. That is all irrelevant though, since we know the base samples do not have all this built in, they are "lifeless" if you could say... Locking a script doesn't cover up end of a means, but rather, the means to an end, and that is very important.

As for the possibility of any timbral or tonal usage of convolution, that is entirely possible too. I believe there is a string library that makes use of that feature, correct? So that isn't anything new.

I truly believe that with all the amount of public information and a good know how of K2, it wouldn't take a few K2 minds to deduce how i works, even with those patches locked. IMO, they sealed their fate once they detailed phase alignment on Gary's site. The rest is just deducting what K2 can and can't do native, and then filling in the blanks with scripting.

Regardless of all that, The Trumpet sounds like a wonderful instrument and it seems SM spent a lot of time and care into making it very playable, something other libraries don't always come with. I'm sure for many people it is a dream come true to have an instrument that really doesn't need to be rebuilt to fit their needs.


----------



## Moonchilde (Jan 7, 2009)

Big Bob @ January 7th 2009 said:


> > How about this:
> > Two prices for a locked and a un-locked version.
> > Have a regular price or the library and pay extra for a version with open edit features?
> 
> ...



Sadly, there being a higher premium on an unlocked library, won't stop people from sharing it. If Waves costs the amount it does and still gets shared, then there is no amount reasonable you could sell a library/instrument for that would prevent it from being shared. I don't get it myself, perhaps I'm too selfish, but when I pay for software licenses I refuse to share them. Why should I give something away to others who didn't earn it, yet I paid good money for? 

I think the only thing you could do is to have a contract signed that you will not share a file and sign your name that you agree should your purchase be found outside of your usage then you must pay a consequence. With a pool of names one could gather IP addresses an go down the list and play matchmaker to find out who is sharing or leaked the software. Then of course, take action. IMO thats really the only way considering how successful copy protection is and locked formats are.

I don't even think the above would be very successful either.


----------



## Chris Hein (Jan 7, 2009)

Concerning copy protection of .nki files I vote for WATERMARK
I know that some developers do hat already.
So, if you give the library to someone else you will be blamed.

Watermark protection is already very common in music production and mp3 files.
Again an invention from the german Fraunhofer institute. 

Chris Hein


----------



## Thonex (Jan 7, 2009)

Chris Hein @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> Concerning copy protection of .nki files I vote for WATERMARK
> I know that some developers do hat already.
> So, if you give the library to someone else you will be blamed.
> 
> ...



Chris,

This is interesting. Can you elaborate on this? Any links to this info? Does it degrade the sound? Will it still work if "resampled"... even in analogue?

Thanks for any additional info.

Cheers,

T


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 7, 2009)

chimuelo @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> And BTW Hans your intonation is beautiful. Much more realistic than these perfect Virtual recordings could ever be. But they are a great cheap way to do a mock up.



JimmyV,

not sure, did you mean me? Because the link I posted in this thread _is _a virtual cello (I play both real and virtual strings). :mrgreen: 

And yes, I use expressive intonation for both. :wink: 

Hannes


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 7, 2009)

I should have referred to the link at NS where you performances were used.

I use virtual strings but only for 14 - 32 players recorded as in earlier VSL/SISS/Miraslav libraries. I can edit the instruments and IMHO those are the only type of strings I can use w/o having to hire the players.
I have several Romplers and libraries w/ Solo strings and I still believe hiring a couple of real performers and using the VSTi/GSI's for mock ups is the best approach. I guess I did one too many recitals and juries.


----------

