# Spitfire Albion I vs. Sonokinetic DaCapo



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

Hey guys, I am about to buy a lib for nice sounding orchestra work along the beaten paths. So I figured Albion and DaCapo would be perfect for me in terms of features. It's ok for me not to have full control over individual instruments, I like to have a good orchestra sound with relatively low effort.

Now which one of these is better? From the demos they sound pretty similar. However DaCapo demos only show the full blown thing, no chance to tell the details. I found the review about Albion on YT by Daniel James, that is a very detailled walkthrough through Albion which had me impressed.
DaCapo would be the chance to save some money if it is equally good. But unfortunately I can't tell from the demos that are available.

Anyone who owns both maybe, or was able to test these somewhere?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Sep 30, 2013)

I have neither product, but thought you might like to know that SCOREcast online did a video walkthrough Da Capo here - http://www.scorecastonline.com/2013/01/ ... ic-dacapo/ . It's not as independent as Daniel's excellent reviewes, but SCOREcast's stuff is very well put together and useful.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

Cool, thanks, I am curious what they show!

Edit: oh, I know that video already. Lots of detailled talk, yes, but the audio demos again only demonstrate full setups. No single sections and detailled velocity walks etc. :-(


----------



## feck (Sep 30, 2013)

I have both, and they are both good for full mockups. 
Any particular features you are looking for?


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

Hey feck,

no special feature wishes I think. I liked the Albion review very much. The patches (high, low) offer enough flexibility for me, I like the modwheel dynamics very much, and the sound is just what I need, a distinguished, elegant yet rather gentle sound that is not so in your face.

So I already was about to buy, when I stumbled over DaCapo. It is a lot cheaper. If that can give me the same as Albion, and soundwise it seems quite similar, then I would go with it.

I read that it has no trumpets, that seems kinda odd to me.


----------



## R.Cato (Sep 30, 2013)

I just own Albion I, so I can't compare them in detail, but judging from Sonokinetic's website and Da Capo demos I would say that they're two completely different libraries. Only thing they have in common is the essemble approach.

Albion comes with full essembles as well as single split out groups in each section of the orchestra divided in its registers high, mid and low.

However Da Capo seems to be more of a Symphobia I essembles approach with full essemble patches for each orchestral section.

Albion also comes with a huge amount of non orchestral content, which more than justifies its price in my opinion. The Darwin percussion stuff sounds bloody awesome and the Stephenson's pads, drones and atmos have a tone you won't find in any other product.

Depending on the music you write I would also recommend you to have a look at Orchestral Essentials from Project SAM.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

R.Cato @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> However Da Capo seems to be more of a Symphobia I essembles approach with full essemble patches for each orchestral section.



Well from what I understood you have even more control in DaCapo. You have section ensembles (woodwinds, brass) like in Albion, but you can control pan/volume for the individual instrument sections (flutes, bassons, ...) In Albion you can only control WW high or low as a whole.


----------



## R.Cato (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> R.Cato @ Mon Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > However Da Capo seems to be more of a Symphobia I essembles approach with full essemble patches for each orchestral section.
> ...



If that's true and your only looking for orchstral content then I would for sure go the Da Capo route.

Maybe someone who owns Da Capo can bring some light into the darkness of us unknowing little creatures?


----------



## TSU (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ 9.30.2013 said:


> Well from what I understood you have even more control in DaCapo. You have section ensembles (woodwinds, brass) like in Albion, but you can control pan/volume for the individual instrument sections (flutes, bassons, ...) In Albion you can only control WW high or low as a whole.



If this is true - it is not the ensemble based library I think...

Consider that Albion have V1+V2 shorts.
Celli shorts.
Mid Brass - Horns & Trombones in unison.
Legato Con Sordino.
Separated flutes sustains & shorts as well as Legato & Sustains Hi & Lo woodwinds section.
FANTASTIC Lo & Hi Brass in octaves.
Piano staccato in diffrent lenghts and FX.
And a HUGE and useble orchestral FX library for all the sections.
Plus some lovely cymbals, tam tams, metals, sub drums, low drums, mid drums, hi drums and impacts.
Time Machine patches that VERY useful.
And a wonderful Brunel Loops as well as Stephenson's Steam Band.
By the way all the drones, pads, atmos and ostinati comes from the recorded orchestral content so they blends with orchestra perfectly.

And all this in the Lyndhurst Hall.
Playing by the greatest english performers.
Recorded to tape. Through the full chain like it would be expensive soundtrack session.
I've compared the sound with some movies recorded there - the same.
Albion has a great path behind. Now we already have version 5.
What a value for the money!
My opinion - if you can afford it - take it.
There is no any chance to be disappointed.
And then, if you get other libraries from Spitfire they will sounds like one.
No matter what a library. Harp, Solo Strings, BML range, other albions, percussion - they all was produced the same way and recorded in the right positions.
So you don't need to think about instrument placement.
(Just writed almost the same text at neighboring topic)))

I am sure that Da Capo is a great instrument as well.
But this libraries in a different weight categories for sure.
The price clearly reflect that.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

Found several audio samples for single patches at audiofanzine. 

http://de.audiofanzine.com/virtuelles-orchesterinstrument/spitfire-audio/albion/medien/audio/ (http://de.audiofanzine.com/virtuelles-o ... ien/audio/)

http://de.audiofanzine.com/virtuelles-orchesterinstrument/sonokinetic/da-capo/medien/audio/ (http://de.audiofanzine.com/virtuelles-o ... ien/audio/)

Actually DaCapo and Albion seem to be on about the same level, except for these brass demos. Albion blends way better than DaCapo

http://de.audiofanzine.com/virtuelles-orchesterinstrument/spitfire-audio/albion/medien/audio/a.play,m.426629.html (http://de.audiofanzine.com/virtuelles-o ... 26629.html)

http://de.audiofanzine.com/virtuelles-orchesterinstrument/sonokinetic/da-capo/medien/audio/a.play,m.470373.html (http://de.audiofanzine.com/virtuelles-o ... 70373.html)


----------



## re-peat (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> (...) but you can control pan/volume for the individual instrument sections (flutes, bassons, ...).


No, you can't actually. In DaCapo, the entire woodwind section is divided into three ranges ― low, mid and high (that's one more than Albion's low and high) ― which can be controlled independently, but there's no access to specific instrumental groups. The same goes for the brass. The strings however are divided in the familiar manner (violins, violas, celli and basses).

_


----------



## korgscrew (Sep 30, 2013)

TSU @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> ProtectedRights @ 9.30.2013 said:
> 
> 
> > Well from what I understood you have even more control in DaCapo. You have section ensembles (woodwinds, brass) like in Albion, but you can control pan/volume for the individual instrument sections (flutes, bassons, ...) In Albion you can only control WW high or low as a whole.
> ...



That library sounds awful!

I think ill stay clear!!


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

@feck: can you say which one you like more, as to orchestra sound?
which one has more detailled velocity layers, better sounding round robin?


----------



## korgscrew (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> @feck: can you say which one you like more, as to orchestra sound?
> which one has more detailled velocity layers, better sounding round robin?



Albion. Full Stop.

Listen to the demos that ProtectedRights has linked too. The diffrence is ten fold!


----------



## RasmusFors (Sep 30, 2013)

Don't have either of them, but what I hear in the demos is that Albion lack some stronger forte dynamics. Its dynamic range seems to be more on the soft side which is good and all, but that maybe requiers you to layer it with other libraries to get those loud fortisimo parts.

Remember to that Albion blends well with the whole spitfire product line, while Da Capo blends well with the orchestral sonokinetic stuff (Vivace and Tutti wich are awsome, and the new Minimal)


----------



## dpasdernick (Sep 30, 2013)

I have Albion. 

Would anyone say that DeCapo could be a Symphobia alternative? I have been lusting after Symphobia since it came out but can't throw down $1000...


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

OK question seems to be answered for me. Spitfire supposedly does audio watermarking, that's a no go for me. I don't buy deteriorated audio.
Too bad, I really thought I would go for Albion. But I don't.


----------



## park bench (Sep 30, 2013)

deteriorated?


----------



## davidgary73 (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> OK question seems to be answered for me. Spitfire supposedly does audio watermarking, that's a no go for me. I don't buy deteriorated audio.
> Too bad, I really thought I would go for Albion. But I don't.



I think you got the whole watermarking thing wrong. 

Watermarking does not deteriorate or affect the sound of any Albion libraries and btw, lot's of other libraries are watermarked too. 

This is from Wikipedia: 



> A digital watermark is a kind of marker covertly embedded in a noise-tolerant signal such as audio or image data. It is typically used to *identify ownership* of the copyright of such signal. "Watermarking" is the process of hiding digital information in a carrier signal; the hidden information should,[1] but does not need to contain a relation to the carrier signal. Digital watermarks may be used to verify the authenticity or integrity of the carrier signal or to show the* identity of its owners*. It is prominently used for* tracing copyright infringements* and for banknote authentication. Like traditional watermarks, digital watermarks are only perceptible under certain conditions, i.e. after using some algorithm, and imperceptible anytime else.


----------



## Andy B (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> OK question seems to be answered for me. Spitfire supposedly does audio watermarking, that's a no go for me. I don't buy deteriorated audio.
> Too bad, I really thought I would go for Albion. But I don't.



The watermarking in all of the Spitfire libraries is obviously not audible you'll be pleased to hear. :D 

Thanks,

Andy.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

Well the question is, is the watermark part of some data files, or is it embedded in the audio samples. In the latter case, you or any expert can tell me as many times as they want that it is not audbile. I won't buy it.


----------



## kb123 (Sep 30, 2013)

In the interests of fairness, Sonokinetic libraries are also watermarked, with no effects on audio quality. You will find that most modern day libraries contain some form of watermarking


----------



## korgscrew (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> Well the question is, is the watermark part of some data files, or is it embedded in the audio samples. In the latter case, you or any expert can tell me as many times as they want that it is not audbile. I won't buy it.



Are you for real?!?

Watermarking is purely for copy protection. The samples do not say "Spitfire Audio" every 30 seconds. 

The licence number and other copy protection is encrypted to data files that the library needs to function. 

Serious or not, I had a giggle from that comment


----------



## 667 (Sep 30, 2013)

Watermarking puts inaudible content into the samples so that software can detect it. Are you able to hear its effects? I've never heard anyone even claim to do be able to do this.


----------



## TSU (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ 9.30.2013 said:


> Well the question is, is the watermark part of some data files, or is it embedded in the audio samples. In the latter case, you or any expert can tell me as many times as they want that it is not audbile. I won't buy it.



(o) 

It is really really strange... can you tell your story of relationship with watermarks more detailed? Maybe this is some kind of misunderstanding...


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

I just don't like the idea that you put something into the samples that does not belong there. And while it might be true that you cannot hear 1 watermark in a mixdown, if you have 50 watermarks adding up from your various library and plugin vendors, then it might get audible. In the sense that your audio gets muddier.
Hey, the vendors spend lots of money to create the cleanest and best audio samples they can, and then they put junk into it on purpose? This is the wrong philosophy. 
Serial encoded in your nki files is perfectly ok, serial encoded in the samples is not ok. My point of view.


----------



## korgscrew (Sep 30, 2013)

Well, good luck finding a "clean" library. Sonokinetic & spitfire both have copy protection. As does pretty much every other pro library.

Files in east west libraries have ilok watermarking embedded in them. Other have steinberg embedded. So again, good luck.

Can I also just clarify that watermarking is kind of the equivalent putting a couple of numbers after the file name of a file. More complicated, but never the less, similar.


----------



## TSU (Sep 30, 2013)

Hm, I understand that you believe in summing of the watermark signals... but maybe you talk about noise\air? This is really audible... but watermarks...

Take my advice - concentrate on music.


----------



## Synesthesia (Sep 30, 2013)

Hi ProtectedRights,

Just to clarify there are MANY ways to watermark digital content - we are not talking about old fashioned high pitched warbling that would drive your dog mad.

For blindingly obvious reasons I won't go into any more detail, but believe me when I say that the many users of Albion don't experience any issue with our system of protecting your investment in your licenses of our libraries, and that our samples have been used in the highest grossing film of all time, I think you are safe to say its not 'corrupted'!

Hope that puts your mind at rest.

All the very best!

Paul


----------



## korgscrew (Sep 30, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> Hi ProtectedRights,
> 
> Our samples have been used in the highest grossing film of all time.



That is 1 of the many main reasons to buy from spitfire. If not the only reason.

o-[][]-o


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

korgscrew @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> Synesthesia @ Mon Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi ProtectedRights,
> ...



Actually for me the main reason is/was/will be the very nice overall sound and the very carefully done modwheel dynamics. From the demos I have seen/listened to, the layers blend perfectly seamless. That's a big big plus.


----------



## korgscrew (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> korgscrew @ Mon Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Synesthesia @ Mon Sep 30 said:
> ...



For sure, exactly why its used in avatar


----------



## feck (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> I just don't like the idea that you put something into the samples that does not belong there. And while it might be true that you cannot hear 1 watermark in a mixdown, if you have 50 watermarks adding up from your various library and plugin vendors, then it might get audible. In the sense that your audio gets muddier.
> Hey, the vendors spend lots of money to create the cleanest and best audio samples they can, and then they put junk into it on purpose? This is the wrong philosophy.
> Serial encoded in your nki files is perfectly ok, serial encoded in the samples is not ok. My point of view.


Sorry, but this is just plain BS.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

feck @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't like the idea that you put something into the samples that does not belong there. And while it might be true that you cannot hear 1 watermark in a mixdown, if you have 50 watermarks adding up from your various library and plugin vendors, then it might get audible. In the sense that your audio gets muddier.
> ...



You are wrong. But you may have YOUR point of view.


----------



## korgscrew (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> feck @ Mon Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:
> ...



He may not have put it lightly, but he's not wrong I'm afraid. 

It seems like you are basing your decision in weather or not the library has Copy protection or not. Which seems a little dubious. 

Quite a bit of major film scores are made from purely sampled libraries. One is the Sweeney by Mr Balfe. Now, I can't hear the copy protection on that soundtrack.


----------



## james7275 (Sep 30, 2013)

I own both and would say to pony up the extra cash and buy Albion.

I don't know if I would say they sound the same either. I bought De Capo because to me it sounded different. Since buying de Capo I've only used it maybe a handful of times. Albion on the other hand I seem to use in just about every piece of music I create.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

@korgscrew: no, you get me wrong. I am fine with copy protection as long as it does not mess with the samples. Challenge/response, personalized files, there are enough ways that work out also for me.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

@james: thanks for your input!


----------



## feck (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> @korgscrew: no, you get me wrong. I am fine with copy protection as long as it does not mess with the samples.


Then you will be fine with Spitfire since it does not have any effect at all on operation.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 30, 2013)

I'm not going to give away anything either, but I am familiar with several watermarking techniques for audio data, going back quite a few years.

Even the earliest systems could not affect the audio, and they have become more sophisticated with time.

Please keep in mind that you might be confusing data with audio data. It would be foolish, at best, if the watermarking were audible in any setting from solo to largest ensemble.

This is mature technology, and while I'd bet that the specifics for any given developer are still well kept, you can learn quite a bit about the underlying theory from any number of text books and academic papers.

If you do a little bit of homework I think you will put your mind at ease.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Sep 30, 2013)

@wst3: if you are knowledgeable about this topic, can you at least answer my concern that if I use 20 different libraries and 30 more effects, thus (in the worst case) having 50 watermarks embedded in my mixdown, is there a danger that they become noticeable? For sure 1 million watermarks will be audible I guess but that is an unrealistic case of course.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> @wst3: if you are knowledgeable about this topic, can you at least answer my concern that if I use 20 different libraries and 30 more effects, thus (in the worst case) having 50 watermarks embedded in my mixdown, is there a danger that they become noticeable? For sure 1 million watermarks will be audible I guess but that is an unrealistic case of course.



I do not know the specifics of the watermarking currently in use by any of the developers represented here, so take this with the requisite grain of salt (maybe put it on the rim of a glass<G>)...

Assuming that the developers here all use the same foundation with which I am familiar then even 1,000,000 watermarks would be inaudible. I mean there'd likely be tons of other problems with 1,000,000 samples<G>, but watermarks would not be one of them.

Thirty or fifty watermarked instruments playing at once would simply not be an issue. As one proof, give a listen to some of the demos provided by Spitfire or Sonokinetic and see if you hear anything untoward. Obviously this is not quite the same as experimenting yourself, but I think you'll get a good idea. (Try to find uncompressed demos for best results - but you already knew that!)

I really do wish I could give you something more specific! What I can suggest is that you look up some of the related patents as a starting point. The IEEE has also published a number of papers on the subject, some of which made my head explode, so proceed with caution<G>!

I'm not sure how much to say here, but if you do a google search for DIF or Nabster you will find a couple articles about how this system, which dates back to 1986, was developed. I'm quite certain even DIF has matured since then, but it's an interesting glimpse into the underbelly of audio watermarking!

Keep in mind that the computing horsepower, and the size of the target files has increased many times since Nabster was envisioned. I mean some of these guys are using wavelet theory to generate and hide the watermarks... I'm not even sure how that's possible! Again with the exploding brain...

You'll also want to do a little research into the concept of Dithering (if you are not already familiar with it) since that'll give you a better idea of just how many bytes you'd have to disturb to create a perceptible anomaly.

Even if you decide that you trust Spitfire, Sonokinetic, and others to have your best interests at heart this is some fascinating reading! I hope this helps!


----------



## midi_controller (Sep 30, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> @wst3: if you are knowledgeable about this topic, can you at least answer my concern that if I use 20 different libraries and 30 more effects, thus (in the worst case) having 50 watermarks embedded in my mixdown, is there a danger that they become noticeable? For sure 1 million watermarks will be audible I guess but that is an unrealistic case of course.



Seriously, there are people here that will complain about the most tiny, insignificant amount of noise in samples. Stuff that, in all honesty, I'd never have noticed and in certain cases, couldn't hear at all. There are people here that will promote one sampler vs another or one sequencer vs another because one sounds better, something else I've never been able to notice. And out of all the composers, musicians, audio engineers and audiophiles I've ever come in contact with, on this board and everywhere else, I've never once, not _one single time_, ever heard someone complain about hearing watermarks, or even tiny little things that possibly _could_ be watermarks. Not once. If it was there, someone would have heard it, and probably started ranting and raving about it long before now. If the combined population of this board cannot convince you, you are a lost cause brother.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 1, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Mon Sep 30 said:


> (...) if I use 20 different libraries and 30 more effects, thus (in the worst case) having 50 watermarks embedded in my mixdown, is there a danger that they become noticeable?


If you're going to use 20 different samplelibraries in a single mix (not to mention loads of plugins), watermarking — assuming for a splitnanosecond it is audible (which it isn't) — will be the least of your problems. Your audio will already be compromised soooo badly right from the start anyway, that any consideration about whether or not watermarking might affect audioquality is really quite preposterous and absurd.
Working with just a single samplelibrary — even the best ones, and especially orchestral ones — already means sacrificing audioquality to some extent. Nature of the beast, I'm afraid.

_


----------



## TGV (Oct 1, 2013)

I don't know how NI instruments get watermarked, but I can imagine a very simple approach that is totally inaudible. Say you assign a pseudo-randomly distributed 128 bit code to each sample. Then distribute each separate of these 128 bits over the first couple of thousand samples, by changing 1 bit in every 50 or so samples. If the samples are 24 bit each, the changed bit will be far, far below any noise floor, and the more samples you play, the greater S/N ratio becomes. So every sample file would be traceable, but the trace would be totally inaudible.


----------



## peksi (Oct 1, 2013)

albion has a very balanced overall sound which i believe paul & friends have refined quite a bit. albion fits in to the mix very well and does not seem to have any disturbing amplified frequences shouting over the mix.. as i've seen with other cheaper instruments. you dont have to touch your EQ most of the time when working with it.

i never knew that the protection is in the audible content. thought that it is compiled only in the binaries. but as long as i cannot hear anything it is fine by me.. and something unavoidable anyway.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 1, 2013)

OK. I saw that my Heavyocity stuff is watermarked also. All my other stuff presumably as well. I got to accept that we live in an evil world where honest customers get scrambled products for the sake of copy protection. I accept that I will only produce junk audio made of junk samples. Basically my output is a pile of watermarks, with some music on top.
Real audiophile hifi is produced elsewhere, by real world instruments only. 

I am disenchanted really hard with learning this. It really feels not right. It feels wrong.


----------



## TSU (Oct 1, 2013)

deleted


----------



## hector (Oct 1, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> OK. I saw that my Heavyocity stuff is watermarked also. All my other stuff presumably as well. I got to accept that we live in an evil world where honest customers get scrambled products for the sake of copy protection. I accept that I will only produce junk audio made of junk samples. Basically my output is a pile of watermarks, with some music on top.
> Real audiophile hifi is produced elsewhere, by real world instruments only.
> 
> I am disenchanted really hard with learning this. It really feels not right. It feels wrong.


Watermark in the continuta download is in the kontakts instrument not the sound....... so how is the product scrambling? it just your customer details in the software to stop you puting it on the net... at least that how i believe it is for this kontakt watermarks of heavyocity, spitfire, cinematic strings, etc. of continuata


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 1, 2013)

hector @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> Watermark in the continuta download is in the kontakts instrument not the sound....... so how is the product scrambling? it just your customer details in the software to stop you puting it on the net... at least that how i believe it is for this kontakt watermarks of heavyocity, spitfire, cinematic strings, etc. of continuata



Some say audio watermark, some say non audio watermark. Nobody really knows. Vendors don't clarify to keep protection at maximum. So I fear the worst.


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 1, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> OK. I saw that my Heavyocity stuff is watermarked also. All my other stuff presumably as well. I got to accept that we live in an evil world where honest customers get scrambled products for the sake of copy protection. I accept that I will only produce junk audio made of junk samples. Basically my output is a pile of watermarks, with some music on top.
> Real audiophile hifi is produced elsewhere, by real world instruments only.
> 
> I am disenchanted really hard with learning this. It really feels not right. It feels wrong.



:roll: 

By your theory, so is all your itunes music library, plus your DAW.

If you are THAT bothered by something that doesnt even exist, try this out. Its free and I doubt it has any sort of copy protection on it.

http://www.blanksheetmusic.net/



We really need a hand slapping own face smiley.


----------



## davidgary73 (Oct 1, 2013)

I reckon the only cure for good audio is to use real instruments and forget about sample libraries  

For many of us, we use every sample libraries we have to make music and love using them because it's music first. 

Cheers


----------



## Synesthesia (Oct 1, 2013)

As an idea of the non-invasiveness of the watermarking process implemented in Spitfire products, you could layer instruments literally 1,000,000+ times with absolutely zero impact on the audio.

I hope that puts your mind at rest!


----------



## RiffWraith (Oct 1, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> For sure 1 million watermarks will be audible....



No it wouldn't. If you have evidence to the contrary, and to support your theory, please feel free to put it forth. 

Cheers.


----------



## feck (Oct 1, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> hector @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Watermark in the continuta download is in the kontakts instrument not the sound....... so how is the product scrambling? it just your customer details in the software to stop you puting it on the net... at least that how i believe it is for this kontakt watermarks of heavyocity, spitfire, cinematic strings, etc. of continuata
> ...



No, it seems you are the only one who doesn't know. Stop trolling with this nonsense please. Since we don't have a facepalm emoticon, that is my verbal version of one. :D


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 1, 2013)

feck @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > hector @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> ...



Scott, I dont think he is trolling, which makes it slightly more disturbing :mrgreen:


----------



## feck (Oct 1, 2013)

korgscrew @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> feck @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> ...


Haha, in that case, I agree! I just can't see how anyone would seriously keep on about how a digital watermark may actually de-value their product by affecting the sound. What's next, people complaining about file naming affecting tone?


----------



## mark812 (Oct 1, 2013)

korgscrew @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> feck @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> ...



Yep. And you have the choice: buy it or don't.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 1, 2013)

feck @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > hector @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> ...



@feck you don't get it


----------



## Nuno (Oct 1, 2013)

o[])


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 1, 2013)

Nuno @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> o[])



:lol:


----------



## Synesthesia (Oct 1, 2013)

We'll be happy to produce a non-scrambled version but our conditions are that it must be held on a laptop in a locked briefcase chained to your wrist at all times while you are accompanied by our designated sample security officer who will be reporting back to ourselves and the NSA on the precise locations of the samples at 5 minutes past the hour apart from on Tuesday evening at 8pm when we assemble outside Big Ben to listen to Prime Minster's Question Time at the Houses of Parliament.

I hope this is a satisfactory compromise?


----------



## EwigWanderer (Oct 1, 2013)

I used to sell hi-fi stuff at local store here. B&W 800 series, classe audio etc. and can say that those watermarks in sample libraries are really hard to deal with...NOT!

I hope he is just trolling us...

8)


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 1, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> We'll be happy to produce a non-scrambled version but our conditions are that it must be held on a laptop in a locked briefcase chained to your wrist at all times while you are accompanied by our designated sample security officer who will be reporting back to ourselves and the NSA on the precise locations of the samples at 5 minutes past the hour apart from on Tuesday evening at 8pm when we assemble outside Big Ben to listen to Prime Minster's Question Time at the Houses of Parliament.
> 
> I hope this is a satisfactory compromise?



Do we get a discount with this option Paul?

I dont see it in the checkout area


----------



## Synesthesia (Oct 1, 2013)

korgscrew @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> Synesthesia @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > We'll be happy to produce a non-scrambled version but our conditions are that it must be held on a laptop in a locked briefcase chained to your wrist at all times while you are accompanied by our designated sample security officer who will be reporting back to ourselves and the NSA on the precise locations of the samples at 5 minutes past the hour apart from on Tuesday evening at 8pm when we assemble outside Big Ben to listen to Prime Minster's Question Time at the Houses of Parliament.
> ...



Indeed, the product itself is discounted by 99.9% but you have the financial responsibility to cover the bibendiary expenses of our security officer which could be considerable.


----------



## midi_controller (Oct 1, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> Basically my output is a pile of watermarks, with some music on top.



Rarely has anyone on this board been so completely oblivious and so unwilling to listen to all the friendly ways of saying that you are just flat out wrong. Congratulations, your absolute steadfast, unsubstantiated belief in your misplaced, paranoid ideas sets an all new low.

I'd say that if you are that concerned with how watermarking works, you should actually go study about what it is and how it works, but we all know that you won't do that. You just _know_, man. You don't need no fancy textbooks or science or people who know a hell of a lot more about the process than you do telling you any different.

Well have fun with that! :twisted:


----------



## Stephen Rees (Oct 1, 2013)

I would like the poetic voice of the late great John Gielgud to intone....

'Licensed to Stephen Rees by Spitfire Audio'

...every time I play a sample. This would be both soothing and inspiring. Would create tremendous counter-rhythms when writing minimalist music too.

Technically impossible now of course, but one can dream....


----------



## feck (Oct 1, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> We'll be happy to produce a non-scrambled version but our conditions are that it must be held on a laptop in a locked briefcase chained to your wrist at all times while you are accompanied by our designated sample security officer who will be reporting back to ourselves and the NSA on the precise locations of the samples at 5 minutes past the hour apart from on Tuesday evening at 8pm when we assemble outside Big Ben to listen to Prime Minster's Question Time at the Houses of Parliament.
> 
> I hope this is a satisfactory compromise?


hahahahaha that's AWESOME Paul! Downloading Loegria Redux right now. Can't wait to hear all the new watermarked goodness!!!! (o) Anyone else having a good laugh at the irony of the username "protected rights" as it pertains to this particular thread? :D


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 1, 2013)

Stephen Rees @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> I would like the poetic voice of the late great John Gielgud to intone....
> 
> 'Licensed to Stephen Rees by Spitfire Audio'
> 
> ...



Stick some Fabfilter modulation delay on that too!

Hang on, that's watermarked too. DAMN!!


----------



## wst3 (Oct 1, 2013)

With all due respect gang...

It is an unusual question, and for those that have been dealing with watermarked libraries for some time it is a non-question.

But I do think you might be treating the questioner a little more harshly than required.

If you go back to square one, it is not unreasonable to wonder how the audio quality might be affected by changes made solely to identify the original purchaser - this data has no value in terms of audio quality.

And if you are super-anti-copy-protection (and who amongst us has never been bitten by a CP scheme?) then the fact that data in these pristine samples is changed solely for the sake of copy protection could really bug you.

On the other hand, a little research into how the least significant bits affect the sound of a sample might be enough to calm one's concerns. Or should be.

That is all...


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 1, 2013)

feck @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> Synesthesia @ Tue Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > We'll be happy to produce a non-scrambled version but our conditions are that it must be held on a laptop in a locked briefcase chained to your wrist at all times while you are accompanied by our designated sample security officer who will be reporting back to ourselves and the NSA on the precise locations of the samples at 5 minutes past the hour apart from on Tuesday evening at 8pm when we assemble outside Big Ben to listen to Prime Minster's Question Time at the Houses of Parliament.
> ...



By the sounds of it, he too is watermarked. 

A constant gibberish tone throughout!


----------



## midi_controller (Oct 1, 2013)

wst3 @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> With all due respect gang...
> 
> It is an unusual question, and for those that have been dealing with watermarked libraries for some time it is a non-question.
> 
> ...



The problem is everyone has been telling him that it isn't a problem and watermarking isn't and will never be audible, but he isn't listening. He made up his mind that watermarking has corrupted sample libraries and his music without any evidence, and it seems no one can persuade him otherwise. If someone chooses to be willfully ignorant, they kinda deserve to get made fun of, if only to teach them a lesson. 0oD


----------



## wst3 (Oct 1, 2013)

my last contribution, I promise (lest I become the target<G>)...

Yes, we've all told him it isn't a problem... but none of us can back that up with anything a whole lot more concrete than his unfounded concerns.

Ironic is a way<G>...

Experience tells us that watermarking has not ha a negative effect on libraries that use it. And we're satisfied with that.

But that is still not solid scientific proof.

I would agree that it should probably be indicative that question has not come up here before now. This is a tough bunch, and frankly, now that it has come up I'm surprised it took this long!

The only way to really prove that it is not destructive is to provide documentation on exactly how it is done, and no one in their right mind is going to do that.

So that leave him with a choice...


----------



## lucianogiacomozzi (Oct 1, 2013)

Either you use watermarked samples or you hire an orchestra. Find me a sampling company with audible quality as great as these two that don't have watermarks. Most of us cannot afford an orchestra all the time, so whether it degrades the inaudible quality or not we have to make some concessions.

You can hire an orchestra and create your own samples by all means, if what you want is a watermark free life.


----------



## feck (Oct 1, 2013)

wst3 @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> but none of us can back that up with anything a whole lot more concrete than his unfounded concerns.
> 
> But that is still not solid scientific proof.


Paul himself offered the proof. As a prolific sample set developer who incorporates said "questionable" technology, he should be the authority on the subject. What more does there need be?


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 1, 2013)

lucianogiacomozzi @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> You can hire an orchestra and create your own samples by all means, if what you want is a watermark free life.



A. If you do it perfectly as the mentioned libraries have, it won't sound any better than theirs with no copy protection. 

B. if you want to sell it, how will you protect yourself from fraud and illegal sharing?

o/~


----------



## KingIdiot (Oct 1, 2013)

:shock: :roll: o/~ o-[][]-o ~o)


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Oct 1, 2013)

@ protectedrights

The difference between theory and praxis is such that in theory there is no difference!

Look, this is a bean counting exercise you are pursuing hence it is useless and a waste of space and time. 

Come up with one single example, put flesh to the bone, and post a file where current (say from the past 5 years) watermarked libraries are showing the effect in a mix you seem to be so worried about and we can continue this discussion on a serious level with developers.

As long as there is no such proof, I would think you are in the realm of Higgs boson influence on your summing.


----------



## Sonokinetic BV (Oct 2, 2013)

I just want to stress that there is no way our watermark would be audible, not the slightest chance. Hope that eases your concerns. It would seem stupid to put audible artefacts in a product that people buy for the way it sounds. 
Just thought I'd chime in, as this seems to be a real concern to many people. Of course we would like to not have to watermark our product, since it is a hassle, but in order to be able to keep at it and keep creating new products for you unfortunately we have to.

Son Thomsen
CEO - Sonokinetic


----------



## Darthmorphling (Oct 2, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Tue Oct 01 said:


> OK. I saw that my Heavyocity stuff is watermarked also. All my other stuff presumably as well.



This is where you have to realize that you cannot tell the audio is watermarked. You have a product that is watermarked already and you had no clue. Should be convincing?


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 2, 2013)

So, back to the original topic which was the decision between DaCapo and Albion. Figuring that all stuff is watermarked anyway and that therefore there is no reason to prefer one product over the other, I decided to go with Albion since that got better feedback here.

Thanks to everybody commenting on this!

The sound is really precious and classy. I must use a lowcut at all times though to control the huge rumble in the low end. That could have been done by Spitfire actually.


----------



## AC986 (Oct 2, 2013)

With samples I use a low cut of just about everything.


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 2, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Wed Oct 02 said:


> I must use a lowcut at all times though to control the huge rumble in the low end. That could have been done by Spitfire actually.



:roll:


----------



## Synesthesia (Oct 2, 2013)

Ah yes - that rumbling noise is the watermarking.

(just kidding)

We do need a high pass filter on all the WW patches - that will be in the next maintenance update. But for now, select all groups and just add that 2 pole HPF and set to about 120Hz.

Glad you like it!


----------



## quantum7 (Oct 2, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Wed Oct 02 said:


> I must use a lowcut at all times though to control the huge rumble in the low end. That could have been done by Spitfire actually.



:?: :roll: Some people are just incapable of being pleased or happy. I'm guessing his parents must of had some real fun raising him. :shock:

Spitfire- keep up the good work with the low-end. Love it!!! :D


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 2, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Wed Oct 02 said:


> Ah yes - that rumbling noise is the watermarking.
> 
> (just kidding)
> 
> ...



Paul, I think this should be our job to do. Please give us techies something to do 8) 

In all seriousness though, low passing and high passing tracks should be something you (protectedrights) should be practicing a regular basis. I want the recording to be as organic as possible, then I can add HP or LP my self. Its a matter of taste and for some bizarre reason I might want that room sub in my mix! After all, thats how it was recorded and thats what the room gave the recording.

Instead of moaning about what they could have done with the library, please just load up the ensemble patches, push the ambient and outrigger mics up to around 75% and the close around 40%, add a touch of verb (my preference), put some headphones on and just play o/~ o=< 

I can guarantee we wont hear from you for a while :wink:


----------



## park bench (Oct 2, 2013)

> I want the recording to be as organic as possible, then I can add HP or LP my self. Its a matter of taste and for some bizarre reason I might want that room sub in my mix! After all, thats how it was recorded and thats what the room gave the recording.


+1.
Why over-adjust Air Lyndhusrt?


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 2, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Wed Oct 02 said:


> Ah yes - that rumbling noise is the watermarking.



I knew it! 



> We do need a high pass filter on all the WW patches - that will be in the next maintenance update. But for now, select all groups and just add that 2 pole HPF and set to about 120Hz.
> Glad you like it!



Maybe it *is* better to leave the HPF to the user. I prefer steep filters with a very low cutoff. 2 pole at 120 Hz takes away to much substance, the music gets noticeably thinner. I prefer 8 pole at around 50 Hz, that works very well for me.

Generally I am not a friend of LowCut filters. I use them only if absolutely necessary. As korgscrew said, sometimes this rumble adds to the music somehow. Good example is a piano. Intimate recordings feature hammer impulse noises that range down to the lowest bass frequencies. If you cut those, the impulse gets weaker, the sound looses life.


----------



## TSU (Oct 2, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ 10.3.2013 said:


> Maybe it *is* better to leave the HPF to the user. I prefer steep filters with a very low cutoff. 2 pole at 120 Hz takes away to much substance, the music gets noticeably thinner. I prefer 8 pole at around 50 Hz, that works very well for me.



2 Pole and 120hz is for cutting the unwanted low signal, not to cut every instrument.
Looks like you speak about a different thing.

But yes, I usually leave it all as is


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 4, 2013)

Oh boy now that I go into the details of Albion I find really bad things.

Wanted to do a sequence of shorts on A2 (solo tone). It sounds terrible. There is some resonance or noise on it, a major third, and its really really loud. Talking about the highest velocity layer here. 
The whole range of G2 up to C2 is affected, there are loud overtones / resonances that don't belong there and it really sounds bad. This range is almost unusable for me. I will have to use the Spiccato articulation instead, but for what I wanted to do the Short would have been ideal.
This should get fixed. Anybody stumbled over this?
If you only play chords it does not strike you so bad, but if you play single notes you will hear it.


----------



## TSU (Oct 4, 2013)

Hi Strings > Short?

Playing it right now - it seems all notes you are mention fine for me.


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 4, 2013)

Fine to me too!


----------



## re-peat (Oct 4, 2013)

TSU @ Fri Oct 04 said:


> Hi Strings > Short?



I think he means *this* (low strings, shorts, area around the note A2). And yes, there is something there. Nothing terrible, to my ears, but something which, granted, might indeed begin to annoy a bit once it has caught your ear and you just can't avoid listening to it. It's a sort of weak resonance that almost sounds a bit as if someone, in the distance, is hitting some conga or high snare-off drum in sync with the strings.
Never considered it a problem though, and the thing becomes instantly completely inaudible the moment these strings are surrounded by other instruments. Not as inaudible as watermarking, but close.

_


----------



## quantum7 (Oct 4, 2013)

Just tested also and it sounds great to my ears. Any good audiology clinics in your city?


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 4, 2013)

re-peat @ Fri Oct 04 said:


> I think he means *this* (low strings, shorts, area around the note A2). And yes, there is something there. Nothing terrible, to my ears, but something which, granted, might indeed begin to annoy a bit once it has caught your ear and you just can't avoid listening to it. It's a sort of weak resonance that almost sounds a bit as if someone, in the distance, is hitting some conga or high snare-off drum in sync with the strings.
> Never considered a problem though, and the thing becomes instantly completely inaudible the moment these strings are surrounded by other instruments. Not as inaudiblke as watermarking, but close.
> 
> _



Yes exactly. I find it really terrible. How can you not be bothered by it? I am really wondering. 
I agree it dissapears once you play full chords or even add more instruments. But I need a plain strings shorts sequence that is just playing around the G2 and the A2. It really gets on your nerves then. 
Maybe, if the strings hi also have these notes I could layer both and hope it gets less audbile.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 4, 2013)

quantum7 @ Fri Oct 04 said:


> Just tested also and it sounds great to my ears. Any good audiology clinics in your city?



No test again with Strings Lo and eat your audioclinics


----------



## TSU (Oct 4, 2013)

deleted


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 4, 2013)

Huh, I had overlooked this thread. I can't believe what I read here... .


----------



## TSU (Oct 4, 2013)

deleted


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 4, 2013)

Boys I can't believe it. Some guys here seem to shed out big money on (supposedly) pro libs and don't even have good ears to hear anything...

Of course only applies to a few guys, I think they will know. TSU, quantum7, korgscrew, why don't you just keep off this thread. Please.

re-peat for example has good ears. I guess many other people here have, too.


----------



## doctornine (Oct 4, 2013)

I sort of can't resist this one :

http://youtu.be/7r76H62tzrg

~o)


----------



## Nuno (Oct 4, 2013)

Yes, there's some kind of metalic percussive resonance (my english is not the best to describe it) on some notes being the most affected one E2, at least to my ears, but this is not a synth so i don't bother for this "human" imperfections...


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 4, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Sat Oct 05 said:


> Boys I can't believe it. Some guys here seem to shed out big money on (supposedly) pro libs and don't even have good ears to hear anything...
> 
> Of course only applies to a few guys, I think they will know. TSU, quantum7, korgscrew, why don't you just keep off this thread. Please.
> 
> re-peat for example has good ears. I guess many other people here have, too.



Why do I have to keep of this thread?!? ~o) 

Its called, imperfection. Which makes it sound real.

Can you not use the cog to remove that round robin? I can hear what you mean, but it doesnt bother me in the slightest!

(o)


----------



## TSU (Oct 4, 2013)

Because he can HEAR it


----------



## park bench (Oct 4, 2013)

Protected rights:
If you mock-up this track can you hear the problems with the Albion Strings Low patch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HypmW4Yd7SY


----------



## quantum7 (Oct 4, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Fri Oct 04 said:


> Boys I can't believe it. Some guys here seem to shed out big money on (supposedly) pro libs and don't even have good ears to hear anything...
> 
> Of course only applies to a few guys, I think they will know. TSU, quantum7, korgscrew, why don't you just keep off this thread. Please.
> 
> re-peat for example has good ears. I guess many other people here have, too.



This thread has been very entertaining....at least to those of us with excellent ears. I pray that re-peat never disagrees with you....because then HIS ears will go bad.  Seriously, I was just having fun with you and do hope you solve the issues you are having, because Albion is an incredible library.


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 4, 2013)

re-peat @ Fri Oct 04 said:


> TSU @ Fri Oct 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Strings > Short?
> ...



On orchestral string instruments we can only apply a certain amount of bow pressure before we start hitting adjacent strings. Especially when using one of the two middle strings (of the four). Therefore we can either _not_ play louder or deal with the calculated risk of hitting other strings. Usually we do the latter.

One trick to overcome the problem is to stop the adjacent string with the left hand in a way that allows this extra string to resonate only for a very short time and with greatly reduced volume. I won't get into details since this is a topic never mentioned in textbooks anyways.

To make it short, these extra sounds are artefacts of the string playing technique, not of the recording process. They will ever be there with live orchestral strings from a certain volume on upwards. Hope that helps to clear up the confusion.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 5, 2013)

Thanks for your post, Hannes. This makes sense since it is always a D2 or a C#2 that resonates, so it seems to be a neighbored string. I have not heard this effect so loud before in other libraries, and also within Albion it is (up to now) only this small range where it bothers me. But I think with top velocities it is really bad, it almost sounds like the guys are playing thirds rather than a single tone.

@quantum, @TSU: grow up kids. And get good musicians ears. It will be hard for you I figure, though. Because you are very far from it now.


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 5, 2013)

Hmm ... I don't know. I have worked with quantum7 on several occasions and my impression was that he's got some excellent ears.


----------



## quantum7 (Oct 5, 2013)

Hannes_F @ Sat Oct 05 said:


> Hmm ... I don't know. I have worked with quantum7 on several occasions and my impression was that he's got some excellent ears.



Thanks Hannes! Your ears are also VERY excellent!


----------



## TSU (Oct 5, 2013)

deleted


----------



## davidgary73 (Oct 6, 2013)

Good day ProtectedRights,

When i bought Albion 1 Redux recently, the first thing that i notice was the resonance and noise which i did not expect. I do feel that i bought a slightly noisy sample library as i'm used to clean samples like VSL etc. 

Then when i start making music with them, it's no longer an issue. as you have heard from my Albion demo i sent to your via pm. I have grown to enjoy the library so much more and it's one of the best sample library i bought thus far and layering them with other sample libraries do bring some very interesting results. 

Here's a good example of pretty upclose sound from Albion 1 by Blake Ewing. 

[flash width=450 height=110 loop=false]http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F60171305&secret_url=false[/flash]

When you start arranging your music, it becomes instantly completely inaudible when these strings are surrounded by other instruments as re-peat mentioned. 

Cheers and enjoy Albion.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 19, 2013)

@davidgary73: thanks for your post. I am enjoying Albion, actually.

But also I discovered another thing that annoys me. 

In Strings Hi, Longs, E4 and F4 are a little too high, 10 cents or so, in the lowest dynamic layer. The upper layers are ok. 
If you play a C major (C4, E4, G4) it really sounds bad. 
I mean, why does this not get ironed out by Spitfire? It really sounds terrible and now every user has to correct it own his own using the COG patches. Bad thing is, you can't correct one dynamic layer separately, so you have to apply an averaged correction that sounds acceptable for all three layers.

Several of you mention that you don't here these things in a full orchestra setup. That is 100% true. But if you are doing very reduced passages, just Strings Hi solo for a delicate pianissimo section, and then you throw in this out of tune C major, a good ear cannot stand it, the conductor would slap that violinist! 
Same with that resonance on the shorts. In an orchestral section you don't hear it, but if you have a solo section it sticks out.

So, from a high price library I don't expect such things. Natural sound is ok, some noise here and there, a little variation in attacks, thats all ok. And while out of tune notes are natural, too, a professional's goal is to have zero of them. A slight out of tune note in a tutti passage is ok, but not in a solo pianissimo passage. That just hurts.

Otherwise I am very content with Albions sound. But I think Spitfire should definitely correct these things.

_Edit: Don't forget I am german. I complain even if something is 95% perfect already :oops: Which I think Albion is :wink: _


----------



## quantum7 (Oct 19, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Sat Oct 19 said:


> _Edit: Don't forget I am german. I complain even if something is 95% perfect already :oops: Which I think Albion is :wink: _



That makes sense now. :lol: I would suggest letting Paul at Spitfire know about your concerns with Albion. I've never seen a sample developer come out with so many updates on a product as them. They may very well be able to address some of your concerns. I'm glad, though, that you are enjoying Albion.


----------



## syashdown (Oct 19, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Sat Oct 19 said:


> @davidgary73: thanks for your post. I am enjoying Albion, actually.
> 
> But also I discovered another thing that annoys me.
> 
> ...



I really hope your music is good.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 20, 2013)

ProtectedRights @ Sat Oct 19 said:


> (...) But also I discovered another thing that annoys me.


Protected,

I was ― honestly ― wondering and waiting *when* you were going to mention this. If that previous thing (the neighbouring strings sounding along) already annoyed you as much as it did, then it was an absolute certainty that, sooner or later, you would get pretty frustrated by Albion's out-of-tune strings, and mention it.

I'm entirely with you. The poorly tuned samples of Albion have always bothered as well. Particularly in those soft strings as it makes the ensemble instantly sound like an http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/AlbionStringsOutOfTune.mp3 (unenthusiastic, uninterested, untalented, undisciplined high-school band) instead of the highly professional selection of England's Finest which it is supposed to be.

It would be very nice to see this fixed, yes.

_


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 20, 2013)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 20 said:


> high-school band


Thanks re-peat for sharing your thoughts.
That's the picture that always appears in my mind when I hear out of tune music. Depending on the grade of detune even a prime school band  And I think exactly as you, this must not happen with professionals.

I guess it comes with the sampling process, which is not playing music, but chromatically playing one note after the other, octave for octave, one velocity after the other, like machines. But the musicians arent machines, they are humans. It is understandable that doing such a repetitive boring work, attention fades and errors come in. I would not have the discipline to play all notes / velocities in a row with full attention. 

As Spitfire already promised to work on the low end rumble, I guess they might also correct tuning at least for the worst couple of notes.


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 20, 2013)

As you will also soon notice, not every note is sampled.

Every semitone (half step) is the previous noted pitched up. I noticed this on the off chance, but it hasnt bothered me. I did feel a little cheated the first time a realised, but that passed.

I noticed when certain characteristics of the note were also on the semitone up from it, but pitched up.

Its how sampling is done these days!


----------



## Samulis (Oct 31, 2013)

korgscrew @ Sun Oct 20 said:


> Its how sampling is done these days!



I see quite a few chromatically sampled libraries too though. However, sampling using diatonic or wholetone scales isn't a bad idea at all when you want to make a product that balances realism with not crashing your computer. On one hand, your strings patch can be chromatic and 1 GB or it can be wholetone and only 500 MB or whatever. I think at this point in the development of the equipment we have, it's certainly still perfectly acceptable to not do chromatic sampling, especially when trying to make things that people with setups from more than 2-4 years ago can use, or for people who like fast loading times... I don't know a single person who doesn't like fast loading times. :lol: 

I believe the disease is called Audiophobia, although I'm not sure. I remember reading about it in Oliver Sach's book "Audiophilia" which discusses conditions and diseases related to music. The certain condition being referred to is one in which all music loses its sense of pitches and becomes as one patient described "like the banging of pots and pans". I don't think that is what our friend has... instead, I think he just has over-sensitive ears and general perfectionist tendencies, which isn't a bad thing when it comes to writing good music.

Personally, I find Spitfire stuff to be great. I honestly agree 100% with the philosophy of KEEPING in the mis-fires and bad takes. Honestly, professional or not, people make mistakes- even the best of the best. Hasn't the whole point of developing virtual instruments since the first samplers been to try to approximate the realism of human performance? Isn't that why there's stuff like cross fading, true legato, live vibrato, live tremolo, multisampling, etc. I think the Spitfire Way is just another step in the evolution of more human virtual performances.


----------



## dpasdernick (Nov 1, 2013)

Samulis @ Thu Oct 31 said:


> korgscrew @ Sun Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Its how sampling is done these days!
> ...



Samulis,

I respectfully disagree with keeping in the "mis-fires" and "bad takes" for this reason. In the sampling world a bad take is etched in stone. It is repeated every single time you play that note. In real life, yes, a trumpet may reach for a note and miss it in a passage but chances are he'll hit it on the next attempts. In real life a trumpet player would not consistently blow a Bb for instance every single time. But when you have an out of tune sample it is out of tune chronically. So instead of making the performance more "human" it starts to scream "I am a sample"... 

Vienna's new pro player has a great randomize feature that alters the pitch of a sample in a very human way and every note can be just a tad flat or sharp in a very subtle way. Definitely more human IMO.


----------



## Samulis (Nov 1, 2013)

dpasdernick @ Fri Nov 01 said:


> Samulis,
> 
> I respectfully disagree with keeping in the "mis-fires" and "bad takes" for this reason. In the sampling world a bad take is etched in stone. It is repeated every single time you play that note. In real life, yes, a trumpet may reach for a note and miss it in a passage but chances are he'll hit it on the next attempts. In real life a trumpet player would not consistently blow a Bb for instance every single time. But when you have an out of tune sample it is out of tune chronically. So instead of making the performance more "human" it starts to scream "I am a sample"...
> 
> Vienna's new pro player has a great randomize feature that alters the pitch of a sample in a very human way and every note can be just a tad flat or sharp in a very subtle way. Definitely more human IMO.



You make a great point, I had not thought of that. However, I think as technology and the amount of power available to us evolves, there will be a way for engines to incorporate random bad takes in an intuitive way, not just as round robin samples, but as random elements somehow intuitively linked to an input gauging the training of the player.

It's ironic that the "new" feature of the very expensive line of virtual instruments- slight pitch/time randomization; which, of all virtual instrument lines, Garritan has had for at least a half a decade, if not more (and it's something I have not seen in other engines). I honestly find the lack of development of an automated system to oversee that human element kind of strange. If a developer could do something- anything- to help the composer make a more realistic mockup, why not? I understand now why someone would be hesitant to want those takes in the current system (especially one that uses round robin instead of random robin or other approaches to multisampling that are less perceivable), but I think that is going to change as more power becomes available. Perhaps the answer now lies not in getting more samples (like those borderline absurd 16+ RR libraries I see ads for), but in using less samples more intuitively. I don't know, just a thought.

I still think the Spitfire Way is a good guiding philosophy, and I feel that Paul and Christian have done their best to try to realize that without resulting in "it's a sample!" with the ability to disable takes you don't like and add neighbor RR to re-populate after you clean what you don't like. Their stuff certainly sounds less robotic than other things by a long shot.

EDIT: I remember now that Eduardo Tarilonte has some great humanization stuff in his libraries- breaths, lots of release trigger things that go on, subtle randomization, which I think is a great idea; and somewhat related but less irksome to some (or so I would assume) than including bad takes.


----------

