# EW is recording a new Strings library



## choc0thrax (Sep 19, 2007)

OH MY GOD YES.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 19, 2007)

Well until orchestral strings are done right, they can wait with the disco strings as far as I am concerned. 

Always interesting with new strings!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 19, 2007)

That's good news! But i cant say I'm surprise as strings are in demand. 

...But i just realize i wont be able to use it in K2 and that's already less attractive. :( But 
if it sounds great I'll comply. 

The good thing about these players is they are big money saver. /\~O


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 19, 2007)

Suggestions: personally, I think they should have it recorded in a much smaller venue like a large sound stage with plenty of early and loose reflections without the huge tails and processor-intensive 3-mic mix. Besides, composers can add a good IR later. Let it have legato portamento. Make it comprehensive with every articulation and section sizes: solo, chamber, orchestral and appassionata. Offer it in K2 version - asking too much?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 19, 2007)

Frederick Russ @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> Suggestions: personally, I think they should have it recorded in a much smaller venue like a large sound stage with plenty of early and loose reflections without the huge tails and processor-intensive 3-mic mix. Besides, composers can add a good IR later. Let it have legato portamento. Make it comprehensive with every articulation and section sizes: solo, chamber, orchestral and appassionata.



+1 ...something tells me that's what they are gonna do. 



> Offer it in K2 version - asking too much?



Maybe if we all ask? o


----------



## José Herring (Sep 19, 2007)

If it's possible record desks in position so that we have control over various section sizes. Then create a script or algorithm that manipulates the cc11 volume envelope slightly differently for each desk. So that cresc and decresc aren't too uniform but swell up and down like a real section.

Create a smear effect that's variable that controls the start and attack times of each desk so that it again breaks the uniform sound.

Leave the recordings natural with no mastering or finalizing or normalizing, then offer via Play's convolution engine different EQ, compression and verb presets so that we can choose our sound or create our own sound (ala VGP).

Variable natural sounding legato fast and slow adjusted by modwheel.

Capture all bowings and all articulations.

Best of luck EW. Take the time to do it right. No hurries. We need you to knock this one out of the park.

Jose


----------



## Chaim (Sep 19, 2007)

Fernando Warez @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> > Offer it in K2 version - asking too much?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if we all ask? o



Not gonna happen.

But I say that Play Pro is going to end up much better than K2 or K3 or K4...


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 19, 2007)

Chaim @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> But I say that Play Pro is going to end up much better than K2 or K3 or K4...


I'll betcha it doesn't. NI has way too much of a head start and user base.

Hardly anybody except for a few EW fanatics is going to buy Play Pro for use as a general purpose sampler, so the only sales of it they'll see is from power users wanting better editing for their Play libraries. With that small of a market, it won't be worth it for EW to put too much money and time into Play Pro development.

As always, I could be wrong, but I'm taking any and all bets on this one and will even give you odds.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 19, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> Chaim @ Wed Sep 19 said:
> 
> 
> > But I say that Play Pro is going to end up much better than K2 or K3 or K4...
> ...


I also can't see competing libraries (with EW) wanting to support this company. My bet is also on NI, or even Giga to make a re-emergence.

D


----------



## Daryl (Sep 19, 2007)

leogardini @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> Control over divisis...all the libraries need that today!!!


The only way to do this is to record smaller sections and to have automatic switching to those when more than one note is played. In spite of all the hype about "ensemble building" there is absolutely no evidence to show that it works.

D


----------



## José Herring (Sep 19, 2007)

Daryl @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> Mike Greene @ Wed Sep 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaim @ Wed Sep 19 said:
> ...



Everybody keeps on saying Giga is dead. Every time I go to some Hollywood composer's studio 90% of what they use is Giga. If I talk about K2 and scripting they're like, "what's that?". So Giga doesn't have to make a re-emergence. It's still the sampler of choice amongst most and K2 still has a lot of catching up to do.

If Play is as good as they want to make it then people will use it. Simple as that.

Jose


----------



## Daryl (Sep 19, 2007)

Upsetting though it might seem to some here, Hollywood ain't the world. 8) 

GS4 has to pull some heavy duty tricks, or else it will become irrelevant, and the other 99.999% of composers in the world won't care what the Hollywood fat cats use.

D


----------



## PolarBear (Sep 19, 2007)

Perhaps they should get Todd-AO for this task  :D


----------



## JustinW (Sep 19, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> Chaim @ Wed Sep 19 said:
> 
> 
> > But I say that Play Pro is going to end up much better than K2 or K3 or K4...
> ...



I second that. or 3rd.

"Better" is a general word. In which respect will it be better?


----------



## José Herring (Sep 19, 2007)

Daryl @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> Upsetting though it might seem to some here, Hollywood ain't the world. 8)



That's true. There's always New York, and....and.....and.....hmmm...what are some of the other places?


/\~O


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 19, 2007)

I wonder if now that they have their own studio if they can afford to do some testing to get a good sound for the strings.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Sep 19, 2007)

According to Doug, still in the same thread, it is a chamber string ensemble and it will use the same legato technique as in the violin in Gypsy.

Since I do not own that lib I can't comment but from what I seem to remember for other people's posts, it ain't really happening...


----------



## Daryl (Sep 20, 2007)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 20 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Sep 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Upsetting though it might seem to some here, Hollywood ain't the world. 8)
> ...


You really need to get out more. :roll: 

D


----------



## mathis (Sep 20, 2007)

Daryl @ Wed Sep 19 said:


> leogardini @ Wed Sep 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Control over divisis...all the libraries need that today!!!
> ...



Exactly. This combining desks approach doesn't give you the cross-resonances, the sound of a bigger section.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 20, 2007)

Daryl @ Thu Sep 20 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Sep 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Wed Sep 19 said:
> ...



I've been to the edge of the world and back. I visited a friends studio in Santa Monica. After that there's ocean. Much further than that, I'd fall off the edge of the world. I saw it with my own eyes. Ummmhmmmm...

Back to topic:

We don't need chamber strings. We need studio strings. If I want chamber strings I'll hire real chamber players who would do a much better job of exploiting the reasons for having chamber ensembles in the first place.

I'd much rather that EW spent the time coming up with a Library of expressive strings that could be used in records and for a more "studio" sounding film and tV score. Strings that are a little less Traileresque than EWQLSO.

I personally use samples for more commercial work. I could care or less about using samples for my concert or more artistic work which to me "chamber" falls in the the later category.

I would much prefer for EW to do medium sized sections 11,9,7,6,6 in a good medium room than for them to do small chamber sections. I just wouldn't have much use for smaller sections. And, it wouldn't find it's way into commercial work as that's not the preferred film,TV, game sound.

My hope is that they do a string library for commercial applications that's sonically more flexible and that can be used for more things than EWQLSO.

Jose


----------



## sinkd (Sep 20, 2007)

josejherring @ Thu Sep 20 said:


> I'd much rather that EW spent the time coming up with a Library of expressive strings that could be used in records and for a more "studio" sounding film and tV score. Strings that are a little less Traileresque than EWQLSO.
> ...
> I would much prefer for EW to do medium sized sections 11,9,7,6,6 in a good medium room than for them to do small chamber sections. I just wouldn't have much use for smaller sections. And, it wouldn't find it's way into commercial work as that's not the preferred film,TV, game sound.
> My hope is that they do a string library for commercial applications that's sonically more flexible and that can be used for more things than EWQLSO.
> Jose



+1 for this. I really hope they are after a studio strings vibe.


----------



## Chaim (Sep 20, 2007)

+2 what jose said.

I didn't think that 'chamber' is some thing different than Studio Strings. I thought all it meant is that we're talking about a smaller group than SO, and recorded in a studio. But now you make it sound that there is some thing different in the playing or what ever? What's this whole chamber thing any way?


----------



## Hardy Heern (Sep 20, 2007)

I tell you what (ever so slightly off thread)......what a *joy *it is to have membership of this forum. A forum which allows a thread to open with a link to _another _forum! Brilliant! 

It was a link I made to VI (to help someone) which led to me being banned from NS. Let's not take this freedom for granted! 

As for the new EW strings....that's got to be exciting news! 

Frank


----------



## José Herring (Sep 20, 2007)

"Chamber" to me means chamber music (kammermusik, musique de chambre,ect.) To me it means string quartet, octets, nonets, small orchestras of 6,4,3,2,1, Quintets, septets. Ya'know Mozart wind serenade, Shubert Octet, Stravinsky L'Histoir du Soldat....Chamber music.

In all my fifteen year career I've done about 30 or so features, documentaries, and short films(early on). All I can say is that in that time I've done 3 chamber scores. One was my first score which was a mistake and has never seen the light of day since. The other two for student films.

So the way I see it I can't think of any possible good reason on the face of the earth (Hollywood) why anybody would spend the time to record a "chamber" library. Nice idea. But how economically viable is it? And, those of us interested in chamber music for real would never settle for samples for the intimate textures and personalized playing styles that this kind of music demands.

When I put on chamber concerts the samples aren't the final. I usually don't have to demo to anybody at all. If I do, then I'll just use solo violins, violas, ect....Most of the time I just bang it out on a piano, write it to score, on occasion I'll do a little mockup if I'm not sure about something. After that it goes into rehearsal, if there's changes to be made I'll make them there, then off to concert. Not really a heavy sample job imo.

Jose


----------



## Daryl (Sep 20, 2007)

I find VSL Chamber Strings very useful, not just for divisi passages but also for layering. In fact I use them much more than the solo instruments.

D


----------



## José Herring (Sep 20, 2007)

I agree. That's why I say come up with a full string library that has variable section sizes for divisi, layering, ect...

Imo the void isn't in chamber ensembles, which we have plenty of. I think the void in string libraries is the medium sized studio sound. Sonic Implants does a good job but it's expensive and far from complete as a library. 

Jose


----------



## Niah (Sep 20, 2007)

I think when EW is talking about chamber strings they are talking about a smaller section string ensemble.

I mean it seems like the logical step towards the string ensembles that we can encounter on the EWQLSO package.

Still I don't think they are going to compromise their "signature sound" or alienate their user base, I think they are still going to try to match these strings to the EWQLSO sound.

Nevertheless this is all speculation on my part, and I hope that they take another route.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 20, 2007)

Niah @ Thu Sep 20 said:


> I think when EW is talking about chamber strings they are talking about a smaller section string ensemble.
> 
> I mean it seems like the logical step towards the string ensembles that we can encounter on the EWQLSO package.
> 
> ...


They have built their whole orchestral reputation on the bold statement that you can't match the sound without recording in the same venue. Unlikely that they'll admit that they were wrong at this stage of the game.

D


----------



## Ed (Sep 20, 2007)

Daryl @ Thu Sep 20 said:


> They have built their whole orchestral reputation on the bold statement that you can't match the sound without recording in the same venue. Unlikely that they'll admit that they were wrong at this stage of the game.



I would say they've made out its easier, not that it cant be done. I dont think they were that stupid.


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 20, 2007)

Maybe now that they have their own studio they can afford to do some tests to get the strings sounding right. Please no more strident ugly violins, the sample world has enough of that.


----------



## tgfoo (Sep 20, 2007)

I agree with Jose. It would be nice more options in the meduim size string ensembles. The only library I can think of in that range are the SI strings. Of course, it won't really matter if they aren't well sampled...


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 20, 2007)

Actually Daryl has a very good point. _You have to be a scientist or it sounds like crap_ has been the mantra of EW when it comes to anything but their in-place mic technique. It will be interesting to see what they come up with and how it's marketed if they go another way (which seems inevitable if they are going to use their studio.)


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Sep 20, 2007)

There is no way that they'll match the sound of the EWQLSO recordings.
They may have the IR of the EWQLSO hall but hopefully, the recordings at Cello will be good enough that no extra sweetening is necesary.

I don't need a divisi version of EWQLSO, we need the next best thing (how decadent does this sound?)
And I'm with you Jose, size matters :wink:
We already have VSL's Chamber strings, give us something else...

ps: no Q-legato please!!


----------



## Niah (Sep 20, 2007)

Daryl @ Thu Sep 20 said:


> Niah @ Thu Sep 20 said:
> 
> 
> > I think when EW is talking about chamber strings they are talking about a smaller section string ensemble.
> ...



But then again the EWQLSO sounds are heavily processed, so how much of that natural hall sound are we really hearing? If the sounds recorded are going to be processed later then the place where its recorded becomes less important, because it is altered.
It's my feeling that VSL, EW and others always want to make sure that their new products can blend in with their old ones, even when they drift a little they never compromise their vision.

With that said I'm really excited by the idea of recording a new string library at cello studios, but how much of that is relevant if that lib is going to be processed to death to match the overall EW sound of traileresque products?


----------



## Peter Alexander (Sep 20, 2007)

As it's Doug's money, who can say...

But a few thoughts. I really liked the sound of Ministry of Rock and it was recorded in such a way that you could do vocals with it. Well, I think it would be great if they recorded in that same hall so that the strings would sit well with vocals AND work with Ministry of Rock. 

As far as chamber is concerned, I don't like the word. Hank did plenty of things with a Mozart sized string section of 66442 or 6644 with electric bass.

I don't see 66442 as a chamber orchestra as much as I see it as a smaller studio sized section.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 21, 2007)

Peter Alexander @ Fri 21 Sep said:


> As far as chamber is concerned, I don't like the word. ...
> I see it as a smaller studio sized section.


I like the word a lot - just listen to it: My Bedroom Orchestra. 0oD 

Actually, chamber music is supposed to be played in some sort of living rooms, something like small studios. So playing string quartets in a concert hall is similar to reading bedtime stories in a cathedral. ~o)


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Sep 21, 2007)

aeneas @ Fri Sep 21 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Fri 21 Sep said:
> 
> 
> > As far as chamber is concerned, I don't like the word. ...
> ...


Isn't that what they read in cathedrals? I was always falling asleep...


----------



## Ed (Sep 21, 2007)

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Sep 20 said:


> There is no way that they'll match the sound of the EWQLSO recordings.



Because the sound of the QLSO sounds SOOOOOO natural at the moment. :roll: We've been mixing different libraries for years. TJ Simon and Maarten use PP with other libraries and seem to have no problems, I mix loads of libraries myself and Im sure you do to yet some people are worried that oh noes its not being recorded in the East West hall? If QLSO sounded like PP maybe I could understand the complaint, but it doesnt. It doesnt sound like much like a nice airy orchestra recording Ive listened to, but maybe some people cant seem to hear that.


----------



## Ed (Sep 21, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Thu Sep 20 said:


> Actually Daryl has a very good point. _You have to be a scientist or it sounds like crap_ has been the mantra of EW when it comes to anything but their in-place mic technique.



Can you show anything they've actually said that shows this?


----------



## José Herring (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't like it when these discussions turn into a bash EWSO. By all accounts it's a great library. Sure it has it's flaws but they all do.

Imo the only problem I've encounted with EWSO is when trying to do other types of scores besides the late romantic orchestral kind.

Many of the great orchestral recordings where absolutely not recorded in a hall. So I'm hoping that EW decides to do a studio orchestra. I think this will be most useful.


----------



## Ed (Sep 21, 2007)

josejherring @ Fri Sep 21 said:


> I don't like it when these discussions turn into a bash EWSO. By all accounts it's a great library. Sure it has it's flaws but they all do.



Oh Im not saying its useless, in fact I wish I could afford XP as it has a few cool patches by the sounds of things, but the fact is it doesnt sound like recordings of orchestras I have here and really like. I just think given the fact that the sound isnt _actually _the dogs bollocks it doesnt matter if they record in a different space, at all, if its going to give us a really awesome string library. I think its a good sign Nicks been hangin' with Mr Bergerson two steps from hell, because it might maybe him want to try and get something that good for himself, and therefore for this library. Sure it probably wont be as easy to mix than if they did go to the same hall, but I dont see how that matters if it works.


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 21, 2007)

You know that Keith Johnson dude is probably dead by now so maybe they could hire TJ to help out!! VSL used TJ for Epic Horns and they turned out to be the best horns out there.


----------



## mixolydian (Sep 23, 2007)

Hell, if TJ throw his experience in another strings library, I have to make sure not to sell my soul to get it.  His strings/violins have something special that I've never noticed with any other (samples based) track.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 23, 2007)

mixolydian @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> His strings/violins have something special that I've never noticed with any other (samples based) track.


It's called musical and programming talent.... :lol: 

D


----------



## mixolydian (Sep 23, 2007)

Well, don't forget "processing" or "producing" to make it complete. Nothing against TJ's writing, it's absolutely fantastic - I'm a fan of his stuff. But his strings sound is something more than writing and programming. ...I guess TJ has a very special way of EQing/processing his violins or something similar - I can't figure it out, cos I'm just a lousy one. :D

...Listen to the "Epic" track on their Hell website, TJ's legato violins at 0:22 til 0:46 and you know what I mean. Hell, I could have bet these are real violins.


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 23, 2007)

mixolydian @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> Well, don't forget "processing" or "producing" to make it complete. Nothing against TJ's writing, it's absolutely fantastic - I'm a fan of his stuff. But his strings sound is something more than writing and programming. ...I guess TJ has a very special way of EQing/processing his violins or something similar - I can't figure it out, cos I'm just a lousy one. :D
> 
> ...Listen to the "Epic" track on their Hell website, TJ's legato violins at 0:22 til 0:46 and you know what I mean.



We all know TJ is brilliant, but part of his private collection is "phrases", so legato is a non issue for these.

Also, for the record, EWQLSO is not heavily processed, there is no processing on the forte samples at all.

Chamber was a bad choice of word for the new strings collection, it's designed to be more intimate, but not sterile. Studio 1 is famous for its live instrument acoustics. We haven't started recording yet, so we welcome any of your ideas.

Cheers,

- Doug


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 23, 2007)

I think one of the things EW should stay away from is expression put into the sample itself. I've heard that expressive string patch everyone uses and it doesn not sound right to me at all.

I also think adding verb into a library sample is a bad idea. Plus, any type of legato is very necessary indeed. Makes all the difference.


----------



## mixolydian (Sep 23, 2007)

Doug Rogers @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> We all know TJ is brilliant, but part of his private collection is "phrases", so legato is a non issue for these.
> 
> ...
> 
> We haven't started recording yet, so we welcome any of your ideas.



Thanks, Doug. I don't see you can go wrong with the new library if you know how TJ achieve his sound. :D

...Oh, not forgot to mention: besides the phrases (nice infos btw.), I think there is life/breathing in TJ's samples. Listen to the long notes. But I'm not the right person to discuss such things, cos I'm just a hobbyist!

Kai


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 23, 2007)

Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> Anyway, this lib will be recorded in the Spring 2007



You mean 2008, right?

Yes, there are always improvements to take advantage of, we'll do our best and hopefully this will be useful to a lot of composers.

Daryl, if we all agreed with each other all of the time, how boring would life be?

Craig, thanks for posting the examples, but you're not exactly a typical user either, definitely a cut above the rest.

Cheers,

- Doug


----------



## Daryl (Sep 23, 2007)

Craig Sharmat @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> i have posted tons of stuff
> 
> go to
> 
> ...


Craig, for a start you are also an extremely good composer and programmer, so hardly a typical user. Secondly, in all the examples you gave the strings are never features in legato passages and the orchestration is designed to give an effect, so in a way you are disgusting the strings. I'm not saying that they don't sound great, I'm saying that we can't really hear them.

D


----------



## Daryl (Sep 23, 2007)

D*mn, Doug beat me to it again. He's on a roll........

D


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Sep 23, 2007)

Thanks Doug

I personally think you have an amazing situation in the old cello studios, A world class room with the flexibility to figure things out. I would be surprised if you did not create a state of the art library there.

Daryl wrote

"Secondly, in all the examples you gave the strings are never features in legato passages and the orchestration is designed to give an effect, so in a way you are disgusting the strings."

is that a compliment?...

of course I know what you meant and i have legato string pieces here but I think showing them probably won't help at this point.


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 23, 2007)

Doug Rogers @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, this lib will be recorded in the Spring 2007
> ...



No, I think he was right about spring 2007. So where's the demos Doug????? 

Here's Simon Ravn using PP strings: http://www.simonravn.com/media/HOM-1m12.mp3 .


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 23, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> No, I think he was right about spring 2007. So where's the demos Doug?????


 o/~


----------



## Pando (Sep 23, 2007)

Daryl @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> so in a way you are disgusting the strings.


 :D :mrgreen: 

(I'm sure you meant "disguising")


----------



## Pando (Sep 23, 2007)

mixolydian @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> Well, don't forget "processing" or "producing" to make it complete. Nothing against TJ's writing, it's absolutely fantastic - I'm a fan of his stuff. But his strings sound is something more than writing and programming. ...I guess TJ has a very special way of EQing/processing his violins or something similar - I can't figure it out, cos I'm just a lousy one. :D



It's called "performing" :D

Basically he made the samples to be controllable in real time (that means years of tinkering) and he's playing them. What you hear is a human playing, not a sequencer.

It's the performance of the guy playing them that makes them come alive. You can hear the section bow changes when they suppose to happen, something you can't do with ten fingers on the keyboard (as AI painfully demonstrated) or plugging notes into the sequencer and drawing cc curves. That, and the fact that the tone is perfectly balanced across the whole orchestra in the entire dynamic range, which greatly adds to the realism.

To my ears, pp samples sound 'thin', but consistent and very, very elegant. They sound to me like they are recorded to give maximum control to the user, and yet not sounding totally static nor overly dynamic where you can hear the player's performance burned into the sample. I think it's a very delicate balance one has to maintain when recording the library.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Sep 23, 2007)

I just signed a contract with the Amsterdam Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra to sample their string sections in the Concertgebouw itself (one of the three top halls in the world!).

However the project has stalled, as I was required to have a professor aboard as recordist...

Anyone with a PhD degree here? Archeology, Paleontology, whatever....

o/~ :mrgreen: 

Still don't understand why EWQLSO doesn't sound like the real stuff...

Why bother to expect a new string lib from them... Is that not a confirmation that the previous libraries were not optimal?

Sorry for my grumpiness, but I still feel Gold was one of my worst purchases...


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 23, 2007)

Peter Roos @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> I just signed a contract with the Amsterdam Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra to sample their string sections in the Concertgebouw itself (one of the three top halls in the world!).
> 
> However the project has stalled, as I was required to have a professor aboard as recordist...
> 
> ...



Are you making a string library to sell? Good luck even though you probably know what string samples always end up like. o/~


----------



## Chaim (Sep 23, 2007)

I think I found the ultimate place for sampling strings:

http://www.audioease.com/IR/golgumbaz/golgumbaz.html

:shock: :roll: :D :mrgreen: 
o/~ o/~ o/~ o/~ o/~


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Sep 23, 2007)

I was J/K of course :lol:


----------



## Chaim (Sep 23, 2007)

• Phrases would be a good idea - runs on all keys, scales and many tempos, but easy and fast to access what one is looking for.

• (this one is for Play) please put in a transpose feature, that transposes the 'playing keys' and leaves the keyswitches where they are.

AND the transpose button should be automate-able. So when the user chooses to work at a position before a key change, and then after the key change, the plug in goes along.

And this is why I think Play will grow to out perform K2 because I feel that Doug listens and wants this thing to take off as much or more than we do.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 23, 2007)

Pando @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > so in a way you are disgusting the strings.
> ...


That's what you get for using Spellcheck..... :lol: 

D


----------



## mixolydian (Sep 23, 2007)

Pando @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> It's called "performing" :D
> 
> Basically he made the samples to be controllable in real time (that means years of tinkering) and he's playing them. What you hear is a human playing, not a sequencer.
> 
> It's the performance of the guy playing them that makes them come alive. You can hear the section bow changes when they suppose to happen, something you can't do with ten fingers on the keyboard (as AI painfully demonstrated) or plugging notes into the sequencer and drawing cc curves. That, and the fact that the tone is perfectly balanced across the whole orchestra in the entire dynamic range, which greatly adds to the realism.



Sounds pretty good. Even if I don't understand all the particulars you're talking about.  ...Yes, the dynamic range is something TJ mentioned in another thread.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 23, 2007)

Ed @ Fri Sep 21 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu Sep 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Daryl has a very good point. _You have to be a scientist or it sounds like crap_ has been the mantra of EW when it comes to anything but their in-place mic technique.
> ...



It's almost verbatim from a Nick Phoenix interview. It may have been in VI Magazine. He didn't say "or sounds like crap" but that's the inference. I don't say it's a false statement, in fact it's more true than anything else. My point is that this philosophical view is changing over there if they will no longer be recording in a hall. Perhaps this explains the whole "chamber" concept in that it's not in a hall.

Another thing to consider is that if they no longer record in a hall than that's the end of the line for expansion of their orchestra (unless they come up with a solution that makes for a seemless transition.)


----------



## Nick Phoenix (Sep 23, 2007)

You guys remind me of a bunch of old ladies at a bingo buffet. /\~O 

All we have ever said is that close micing orchestral instruments is not good enough. The new string project is a gigantic project that will draw on the things that have been learned from all the well-known string sample sets with some new ideas as well. It will have a Hollywood soundstage sound, close mics and stage mics and will also offer another type of sound (secret). Just the violins will take 2 years to complete. See you at Namm 2010 with volume 1. o/~


----------



## Peter Alexander (Sep 23, 2007)

Nick Phoenix @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> You guys remind me of a bunch of old ladies at a bingo buffet. /\~O
> 
> All we have ever said is that close micing orchestral instruments is not good enough. The new string project is a gigantic project that will draw on the things that have been learned from all the well-known string sample sets with some new ideas as well. It will have a Hollywood soundstage sound, close mics and stage mics and will also offer another type of sound (secret). Just the violins will take 2 years to complete. See you at Namm 2010 with volume 1. o/~



As some of us are getting AARP solicitations, maybe 2009? o=<


----------



## Pando (Sep 23, 2007)

Nick Phoenix @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> Just the violins will take 2 years to complete. See you at Namm 2010 with volume 1. o/~



That's wonderful. You may beat AI to market after all.
:D


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 24, 2007)

2010? Hmmm. It'll be interesting to see if WIVI doesn't make big sample libraries obsolete by then!


----------



## re-peat (Sep 24, 2007)

That's what I was thinking as well. The new Synful is around the corner too, by the way (only a matter of weeks, according to the buzz), and if that horn demo which we heard a while back is anything to go by, Synful's new strings might very well turn out to be a most pleasant surprise.
Either way, I dare to predict that within a few years from now, sample libraries like we know them today, will be modeled totally obsolete.

_


----------



## Chaim (Sep 24, 2007)

Good luck Nick and team.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2007)

Nick Phoenix @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> You guys remind me of a bunch of old ladies at a bingo buffet.


Where do you play?



Nick Phoenix @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> All we have ever said is that close micing orchestral instruments is not good enough.


 ...and that you have to be a scientist to make it sound good. A point which I don't disagree with in essence. My ultimate point being that if EW is no longer going to be recorded in the exact same hall, some sort of science will need to be applied for a seemless match.


----------



## Chaim (Sep 24, 2007)

I would like to present an idea.
Not necessarily for this EW project.

A developer samples extensively an instrument
or group (strings), I mean really crazy,
more than VSL, then the user only gets a few basic patches
that he uses to play his song.

He plays it simply on a keyboard
and uses an expression pedal for expression,
after touch for vibrato,
and the pitch wheel for pitch.

Non of this is intended to stay.
The Plug-in (VI) now analyzes this midi track
and composes for you it's own version
of high quality samples
taken from many other articulations, 
to the best possible match of the original midi track.

The VI may use midi controllers and artificial stuff too, (AI).

What's the benefit?

The user can focus on playing his song
with out thinking which of the 101 articulations
really fits in here, and which one am I going to select right after.

OK he gets a bland patch to play with but still...

The result can be very good I think,
and if you want you can go in there and tweak it.

Now the tweaking will be set up
like the built in spell check (mac), you know,
you control click on a word and it gives you
the most appropriate options.


----------



## Chaim (Sep 24, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> My ultimate point being that if EW is no longer going to be recorded in the exact same hall, some sort of science will need to be applied for a seemless match.



I don't really care about a seamless match, and I don't think EW is focusing on that either. They are simply doing a new library, recorded in a studio. If it's going to be complete, I will not use or need SO any more even with it's glorious (and truely nice)hall sound.


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 24, 2007)

re-peat @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> That's what I was thinking as well. The new Synful is around the corner too, by the way (only a matter of weeks, according to the buzz), and if that horn demo which we heard a while back is anything to go by, Synful's new strings might very well turn out to be a most pleasant surprise.
> Either way, I dare to predict that within a few years from now, sample libraries like we know them today, will be modeled totally obsolete.
> 
> _



Except Eric would be the first to tell you his Synful library has nothing to do with physical modeling, it's based on sampled phrases. 

We have kept our eyes (and ears) on the development of physical modeling, but currently it sounds like bad digital to me. 

- Doug


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 24, 2007)

Chaim @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> Dave Connor @ Mon Sep 24 said:
> 
> 
> > My ultimate point being that if EW is no longer going to be recorded in the exact same hall, some sort of science will need to be applied for a seemless match.
> ...



But that's my point exactly. If it's not seemless than a different philosophy is indeed being employed (a different recording technique or at least a different venue which amounts to the same.) I'm not criticising it or anyone. I'm saying that EW has made a big point about the way they've done things but are doing things differently now which is an admission of sorts that there's other ways of creating a library. I think their orchestral library is great btw and indeed spare's the user a whole lot of tweaking. All of us are looking forward to people of their expertise creating a new string library because we can't get enough of improved strings. So it's not a knock but merely an observation.


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 24, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> I'm saying that EW has made a big point about the way they've done things but are doing things differently now which is an admission of sorts that there's other ways of creating a library. (I think their orchestral library is great btw and indeed spare's the user a whole lot of tweaking)



No change in philosophy, we're just creating something more intimate than you can achieve in a large hall. Even with the close mics in a large hall there is still a lot of ambience. This works well for dynamic film score compositions but if you wanted the "Eleanor Rigby" string section, this will work better. 

We're just expanding the options, not replacing anything. 

- Doug


----------



## Ed (Sep 24, 2007)

Doug Rogers @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> re-peat @ Mon Sep 24 said:
> 
> 
> > That's what I was thinking as well. The new Synful is around the corner too, by the way (only a matter of weeks, according to the buzz), and if that horn demo which we heard a while back is anything to go by, Synful's new strings might very well turn out to be a most pleasant surprise.
> ...




Really? Even that horn demo? That sounded pretty awesome to me. 

Ed


----------



## Niah (Sep 24, 2007)

Ed @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> Doug Rogers @ Mon Sep 24 said:
> 
> 
> > re-peat @ Mon Sep 24 said:
> ...



Yea I have to be honest, that demo really changed my opinion on this the new technology. I mean I have never heard anything more detailed and organic with regular samples, and the sound is great. 

I wonder what the rest of the orchestra sounds like.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 24, 2007)

Yeah the Horn demo from synful was truly remarkable. But we also have to consider many things: 1) How long would it take to program it? I know that the original synful had to "learn" the phrase before it could play it back. 2) Is the technology good for sections or just solo instruments? The original synful did way better at solo instruments than sections. Is the new Synful going to suffer the same problems?

On the plus side at least we know the horn is going to rock!! Might be worth the money just to have that solo hoòô´   b`·


----------



## Alex W (Sep 24, 2007)

I liked the synful horn demo in terms of expression, but wasn't overly impressed with the tone of the instrument; to me it sounded like a real instrument, but captured with bad recording equipment and average engineering.

I was left wondering if this lack in sound quality was as a result of the method used to "synthesize" the instrument, or because of a shortfall in the quality of the original recordings it was based upon.

Sure it sounded ok, but far from being anywhere close to the quality in say EWQLSO for example.


----------



## Alex W (Sep 24, 2007)

Having said all that though, it's certainly much better than the original synful material, which to me sounds pretty bad.

I concur with what has been said - the questions that remain about the new synful version are:

how do the full sections sound together?

and the most interesting question;

how long will it be before this kind of technology can sound as good as EWQLSO or better?


----------



## KingIdiot (Sep 24, 2007)

I dunno, I myself like multiple options. I HATE the idea of sounding just like everyone else anyway.

theres lot s of things to explore with sampled strigs. I've been doing some stuff lately thats made me interested in going back to older sample libs and making them more playable and even getting legato performances out of stuff that didnt have it. There are ways of samplign and editing the samples to get unmatchable flexibility. Sure its still a brute force method, but man, you're not really comprimising sound quality much, which is still an important thing. Expression is jsut as important of course.

who knows whats gonna happen in 2010. There might be more than EW and AI doing more strings. More options is great, less money sucks...

I personally have enough to not sound like everyone else now, but I'm SO interested in another soundstage type string lib. I'd of course like to sample it myself because I have my own idea of programming and making a good string lib, but I'm still interested in it.

oh and

"B 34!!!" BINGO!!!! Someone wnt to hand me the crab legs?


----------



## re-peat (Sep 24, 2007)

Before carrying on with this, let's get something clear: I know full well Synful doesn't sound like the real thing. Or Wallander. Or Pianoteq. Or whatever. But that's not what matters to me. It's their expressive powers which make them stand head and shoulders above the sample-based competition. And talking about sound: please point me to one sample-based mock-up that does sound convincingly like the real thing. (Not that I'm particularly interested in this pathethic search for pseudo-realism, but just for the sake of this discussion.) 
If sampled based instruments are so good as you all seem to tell yourselves that they are (or can be), that how come I hear - week in, week out - nothing but miserable sounding mockups without any depth, any expression whatsoever?

I'm not saying physical modeling - or whatever type of synthesis it is - is the *only* way forward, but I'm strongly convinced that it ought to become a significant part of soundware to come. It's simply a far more musical solution. The Wallander - for example - to me, is worth MUCH more than all of ProjectSAM, East West Brass and Vienna Epic Horns put together.

And another thing - but I have to be extremely cautious with what I'm about to say cause this might fall bad with some people -: many, if not all, of our virtual instruments sound a lot better (or 'pleasing') if you give them GOOD music to play. If the music is bad or mediocre, then of course the deficiencies in the sounds will be more apparent. If however the music is truly good, inspired and captivating, its sound automatically takes its natural seat as well. This unhealthy and misguided preoccupation with 'mock-up' sound, over composition, is what kills a lot of the efforts I hear.


_


----------



## Alex W (Sep 24, 2007)

Repeat as you can probably gather, you're in a minority around here.

The industry demands mockups including both high quality sound and musical expression, and you can achieve only one of those things with Synful. Clearly this is why sample libraries like EWQLSO have become an industry standard.


----------



## re-peat (Sep 24, 2007)

Alex W @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> Repeat as you can probably gather, you're in a minority around here.


Surely, everybody strives to attain that blissful state one day?
(I'm actually more serious with this than the theatrical arrogance of that sentence might indicate.)

But back to what I was saying. My point is this: it's in the nature of good music to always _sound good_ as well. Just as it is in the nature of bad or mediocre music to always sound bad too, and no new or existing library from East West, or whomever, will ever change that. That's one of the happy side-effects of a good piece of music, you see: it's got an immeasurable advantage over banal or lousy music in the 'sounding good'-department.
All of which is why I find Synful's (or similar instrument's) current limitations completely irrelevant and inconsequential. (And also why I find sample-libraries' limitations irrelevant in many a discussion.)
But hey, I don't want to turn this into a silly debate over which is best or better. There's a time and a place for everything, obviously.

_


----------



## tfishbein82 (Sep 24, 2007)

Playability and expressivity are keys to any future instrument I buy - synthetic or sample-based. Why? Because these are the features of the real instruments. And the better these elements are reproduced, the more life-like and realistic the end result.

I wouldn't write off sample-based products, because I think that these elements can be recreated. Regardless of how you feel about the tone of Garritan's Strad, I think anyone can admit that it is a very expressive instrument. In the hands of a great player, it's expressivity can be as real as anything.

Additionally, Scarbee's Big Black Bass is a playable expressive instrument. So these things can clearly be done with samples or synthetically. Who will do it better? I don't know, and nobody really can know. With Wallander and Synful going the synthetic route, I hope for great results. And with EWQL going the sample-based route, I hope for great results. In any event, I think that we as virtual instrument users will be in good shape.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 24, 2007)

I too am in the minority who thinks that good music sounds good. The only problem that I see is: WHO decides how good a piece of music is? However, IMO, Re-peat has a strong point: above a certain level of quality, the competition among libraries is irrelevant. Everything just comes down to one's abilities to make good music. So let me re-peat 8) that: 

If the music IS good, then it will SOUND good. wivi? ew? ai? vsl? ... who cares? Music is everything that counts.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Sep 24, 2007)

I'd give modeling 10 more years, and then it will be amazing.


----------



## aeneas (Sep 24, 2007)

Tomdini @ Mon 24 Sep said:


> http://www.ridiculosity.net/ein_heldenleben_horn%20.mp3
> 
> I think it sounds pretty freakin' awesome.


This horn has pretty much the same timbre regardless the register it plays in (high, medium, low). A real horn sounds different in different registers. Plus, where are the dynamics? Also, the keyboard-like playing is too obvious. The attack time is almost identical in all notes, which is completely un-natural. In a word, this horn sounds totally fake to me. I am sorry to say: pretty freakin' awful. 

BTW, 'modeling' is supposed to mean 'changing shapes', right? The 'timbre shape' of this synthy horn stays pretty much the same. Listen to any horn solo and you will be amazed by the differences. Save the violin, the horn is probably the most difficult instrument to emulate.


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 24, 2007)

I didn't even notice that stuff I just focused on the unpleasant sound of it.


----------



## Pando (Sep 24, 2007)

Tomdini @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> To add some context, for those who haven't heard it...
> 
> The Synful horn demo was kinda hard to track down, so I'll host it for a while. Nothin' better to sqander bandwidth on, anyway.
> 
> ...



I think it would sound even better if it didn't have two completely wrong notes in there (at 0:13 and 0:14). Or maybe it's just me, but it sure as hell doesn't sound right. The tone is nice and so are the transitions.


----------



## Tomdini (Sep 24, 2007)

I'm far from a horn expert, but I thought it sounded incredibly alive. The transitions jumped out at me, too. It sounds like the instrument is being played. Agreed, lack of dynamics isn't very illuminating, but this demo's only a work-in-progress demo. I think it's definitely a step up for Synful.

Everybody claims every instrument is the hardest to emulate (especially if they play the instrument in question!). They all are. The mere notion of trying to make a piano play like a flute or a guitar is just ridiculous to me, but we're getting better all the time.

Maybe Piet's rubbing off on me. I can hear performance potential in this horn, and I feel any other sonic quirk would be worth putting up with. But I don't really know much about horns... all I know is that EWQLSO's solo horn (the only one I own) doesn't really give me what I want, tonally (not raw enough for my tastes), nor does it play very well (dynamics shift too drastically throughout the register). Maybe after I buy ProjectSAM I'll feel differently, I dunno. I do need a new horn, though.

I thought this sounded better than WIVI, but maybe I should give that plugin another shot...

-Tom


----------



## Scott Rogers (Sep 25, 2007)

..........


----------



## Doug Rogers (Sep 25, 2007)

re-peat @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> And it may sound like 'bad digital' to you



Please re-read my post, I was NOT referring to Synful which is not a physical modeled product. I got this information from Eric, the developer of Synful (whom I respect very much) as we had talks about doing something together. Synful is a sampled phrase based database, and while the selected samples are synthesized, it has nothing to do with physical modeling, that is a different technology.

Technology is always changing, and we're not stuck in any technology, if something comes along that we think sounds better, we'll use it.

Cheers,

- Doug


----------



## Niah (Sep 25, 2007)

Doug Rogers @ Tue Sep 25 said:


> re-peat @ Mon Sep 24 said:
> 
> 
> > And it may sound like 'bad digital' to you
> ...



I agree and sorry for the thread to get so off topic, although is has been a really nice discussion.

But since you asked for suggestion to your next project here it is:



More than anything I think that if you could match this sound with all the imperfections and noises that make this type of recordings so characterisc, you could have a winning product.

btw "Eleanor Rigby" is a great reference track as well, if you could give us something like...awesome !


----------



## Nick Phoenix (Sep 25, 2007)

I think the horn demos sounds good. I could nitpick some things, but it's impressive. Synful's concept is great. Right now there seems to be something that happens to the audio quality when the samples get analyzed and put into database, but if he can get other solo instruments to sound this good, it'll be a cool product. Sections are another matter.


----------



## PolarBear (Sep 25, 2007)

Tomdini @ Tue Sep 25 said:


> IEverybody claims every instrument is the hardest to emulate (especially if they play the instrument in question!). They all are. The mere notion of trying to make a piano play like a flute or a guitar is just ridiculous to me, but we're getting better all the time.


That kinda puts almost all pianist into a small chamber for believing pianos are emulatable. 

PolarBear


----------



## PolarBear (Sep 25, 2007)

Doug Rogers @ Tue Sep 25 said:


> Synful is a sampled phrase based database, and while some of it is synthesized, it has nothing to do with physical modeling, that is a different technology.
> 
> - Doug


How many GB of data was synful again? A few hundred MB if I'm not misinformed for a complete lib like QLSO Gold I guess... extenisve sample pool. Anyway, that's not the point afterall.


----------



## PolarBear (Sep 25, 2007)

Niah @ Tue Sep 25 said:


> But since you asked for suggestion to your next project here it is:
> 
> http://www.tiagobenzinho.com/intimate.mp3
> 
> More than anything I think that if you could match this sound with all the imperfections and noises that make this type of recordings so characterisc, you could have a winning product.


Could you elaborate on the snippets in that clip like where you took them from? Thanks!

Cheers,
PolarBear


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 25, 2007)

Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 25, 2007)

Nick Phoenix @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> Did you guys think I was being serious?



Naw just having some silly fun. 



Nick Phoenix @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> I do thursday night bingo at the Cheviot Hills Country Club.



They moved it to Thursday? I can do that with a little schedule adjusting.


----------



## Ed (Sep 29, 2007)

aeneas @ Mon Sep 24 said:


> Tomdini @ Mon 24 Sep said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.ridiculosity.net/ein_heldenleben_horn%20.mp3
> ...



Its not perfect, but no one ever suggested it did. But it sure sounds better than any other horn sample Ive ever heard. Do you know of anything better? As always if TJ produced the sample material Im sure it would awesome


----------



## aeneas (Sep 30, 2007)

Peter Roos @ Sun 23 Sep said:


> I just signed a contract with the Amsterdam Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra to sample their string sections in the Concertgebouw itself (one of the three top halls in the world!).
> 
> However the project has stalled, as I was required to have a professor aboard as recordist...
> 
> Anyone with a PhD degree here?


There are plenty of _tonmeister_'s in Europe, many with PhD degrees. Why do you have problems finding one?


----------



## PolarBear (Sep 30, 2007)

Peter Roos @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> I was J/K of course :lol:


Hope you didn't miss this one... following the PhD lookout post


----------



## Dietz (Sep 30, 2007)

Simon Ravn @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> [...] the reason they sound good is that they were produced by composers with years of mockup experience, recorded with good equipment in a studio with a nice ambience and a bit of luck [...]



This sounds as the majority of sample manufacturers comes out of nowhere, maybe from carving stones or doing stock exchange business (which is about the same in my book ... but I digress).

At least as far as _I_ know, everybody in this little market niche actually started doing his things not due to plain greed, but as a result from years of practical experience, sometimes academic training, and (hopefully) an aesthetical vision.

... but I agree with your final statement - some luck is always needed 

/Dietz (... another European _"Tonmeister"_)


----------



## synthetic (Oct 1, 2007)

Simon, incredible recording. It is one of those demos that makes me want to pack it up. It deserves its own thread.


----------



## Ear Tonic Music (Oct 1, 2007)

Sorry for my ignorance, but what does PP stand for?

Thanks-


----------



## handz (Oct 1, 2007)

Simon this is really nice! Love the sound of these PP strings! I starting to cry again, I want PP:(
How do you manage legatos with PP - some script or is it just good programing?


----------



## synthetic (Oct 1, 2007)

PP stands for "you can't have these, it's a private library, but here's what they sound like, nyah nyah nyah nyah."


----------



## Simon Ravn (Oct 2, 2007)

Synthetic LOL!!

Ear Tonic music, PP=Project Prague, a collection of samples recorded in Prague.

Handz, no scripting here, I am still using GigaStudio and most programs are even still GS2 Besides I would rather spend my time composing than building scripts etc. As I see it, being able to make it sound as real as possible is NICE but not essential. I don't want to spend 50% more time getting it to sound 10% more realistic.


----------



## ChrisAxia (Oct 2, 2007)

Wow Simon. This is fantastic stuff! Wonderful compositions, beautifully arranged and very convincing!!

Well done,

Chris


----------



## Rodney Glenn (Oct 2, 2007)

Simon...

Very, very nice indeed...as always. Thanks for sharing. 

Cheers

Rodney


----------



## mixolydian (Oct 3, 2007)

Simon Ravn @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> http://www.simonravn.com/media/Promo1.mp3
> http://www.simonravn.com/media/Promo2.mp3



Great. Thanks for sharing your music.


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 4, 2007)

For some reason Simon's site does not load on my home computer. I just get a 404 page. It loads up at work. I just don't understand it...


----------



## Niah (Oct 4, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> For some reason Simon's site does not load on my home computer. I just get a 404 page. It loads up at work. I just don't understand it...



You're not the first to say that.


----------



## PolarBear (Oct 4, 2007)

I've upped both Promo cues for those of you who get the 404's - availible the next 3 days only:
http://www.mailbigfile.com/ea8481d26bb8 ... tFiles.php
http://www.mailbigfile.com/9072ee8bba1e ... tFiles.php

Happy downloading!


----------



## dss (Oct 4, 2007)

Hello Simon, I would be very grateful to you, if you could answer me one question:

You're saying you're using GS 2 yet - please, which Velocity response, Release velocity response and corresponding dynamic range settings do you generally use? I have a problem with GS I can't solve for years. In hardware Akai, Emu samplers, Kontakt or other software samplers there's constant release time in all velocities (e.g. a tone with vel. value 25 has proportionally the same release time as the one with 110). But with GS nonlinear/linear filter system there is something wrong. In its default settings - 
V. response: nonlinear, dynamic range position 3(middle)
Rel. v. resp.: linear, dyn. r. pos. 3 -
- the release time still depends on velocity in a strange way (low velocity notes have badly short release t.). There are graphs of these settings in the manual, but in reality the settings don't work the way manual says. 

Depending on what the manual says - release time completely independent on velocity value should be: 
Velocity response: Linear with Dynamic range: High (pos. 1)
Release velocity response: Linear w. Dyn. range: High (pos. 1). 
But in fact - with this filter setting the sound is completely mess (low velocity notes have extremly long release times and vice versa). The only resonable setting I know of is: 
Velocity response: Linear - high
Release velocity response: Linear - middle.
Overall release time is almost constant with this setting, but again - in low verlocity tones, the release time decreases abruptly. 

I've tried every possible setting of nonlinear/linear curves and low-high dynamic ranges, but none of them leads to release time independent on velocity value (as it is in Kontakt, EXS-24 or hardware samplers). So I suppose there must be some secret trick how to disable release velocity response settings in GS? Or I don't know, I'm desperate.. I like overal GS sound more than other samplers, and also its user interface, but this velocity-release puzzle is a pain. I think that for optimal release time setting of individual instruments it is absolutelly necessary to have a constant release time (as almost every hw/sw sampler has, except GS :( ? ). Thanks for your time in reading this. I would appreciate very much any info on this topic.


----------



## dss (Oct 4, 2007)

Simon, thank you for your reply. I understand that in complex, velocity-layered instruments, the problem I was talking about is less evident. For simplicity - I mean especially single velocity layer instruments. And simply - if I set the release time to an (1-vel. layer) instrument in (for example) Kontakt to 200 ms the result will be:
velocities 0-128 = (real) release time 200 ms
If I set it in GS with EG1 response most neutral settings possible, the result will be (still talking about single vel. layer instr. only) somenthing like this:
velocities 30-110 = (real) release time 198-202 ms, vel. 0-30 = rel. t 160-190 ms, vel. 110-128 = rel. t. 205-210 ms

Vel. layered, crossfaded instruments is anoter story. In my question I meant mainly "Release velocity response" parameter, and less "Velocity response", which is clear.
"Release velocity response" is the stumbling block of everyhting I was talking about. "Velocity response" is, of course, standard usefull parameter (although acts strangely in GS sometimes).
If Release velocity response parameter would have some "reset" or off setting, I would be absolutely happy with GS. My question was rather meant what do you do with this R. v. r. setting. Are you using Linear or Nonlinear settings? And Dynamic range? Because to me, every setting of it sounds vastly different, but more or less "wrong". The release time in a simple 1-vel. layer patch really is not constant and varies as I decribed. It is simple to indentify - if you play very low velocity tones (on a 1-vel. layer patch), the release sounds unnaturally shorter in comparison to when you strike the keys hard (or vice versa).
I don't want to inconvience you with this problem any more. Thanks for your answer. If you still would be disposed to say something about this topic, my question is now heading to "Release velocity response" paramater only, how do you handle it in simple 1-velocity layer GS instrument patches.

I, of course, would apprecitate a lot anyone's help or remarks on this subject. My goal is simple - to find out "Release velocity response" settings that will cause release time pure identical (proportionally) for all velocities (as is in most sw/hw samplers by default!) to any single-velocity layer GS simple patch. Or - at best - to disable this setting completely somehow.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 4, 2007)

Are you talking about sending release velocity MIDI messages from your MIDI controller? I've never gotten realistic or musical results with that from any synth or sampler, I always filter it out. 

Or are you saying that note-on velocity is affecting the release time of your envelope because it doesn't scale properly? 

(We're pretty far off topic now... I think I see the light of the topic off in the distance...)


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 4, 2007)

PolarBear @ October 4th 2007 said:


> I've upped both Promo cues for those of you who get the 404's - availible the next 3 days only:
> http://www.mailbigfile.com/ea8481d26bb8 ... tFiles.php
> http://www.mailbigfile.com/9072ee8bba1e ... tFiles.php
> 
> Happy downloading!



Thank you.


----------



## dss (Oct 5, 2007)

synthetic: Yes, sorry for the off-topic. I'm saying that note-on velocity is affecting the release time due to "Release velocity response" parameter in EG1/Response tab in GSEditor. This parameter can't be disabled, reseted or otherwise set up to zero. In other words - every possible setting of it produces affecting of the release time with note-on velocity, more or less. Moreover this parameter acts very strangely in conjunction with "Velocity response". It's a Pity Simon or anyone else who uses GS with great results doesn't share his settings of "Release velocity response", it would make things much more clear I think.. 

(I'm almost sure that for example TJ and some others surely know how to handle this paramaeter in GS (2.x, 3.x) so that the note-on velocity doesn't affect release time any more, but I understand they don't want to give this information away..)


----------

