# What's happening at SampleModeling?



## Lee Blaske (Nov 25, 2017)

Didn't see any other posts about this. Did this just happen? 

"
*For those interested in purchasing SWAM-based instruments:*
We are sorry to inform all those interested in buying Swam instruments that, following an unlawful action of Audiomodeling S.R.L. (Emanuele Parravicini & Stefano Lucato), we decided, in order to protect our customers, to temporarily suspend the distribution of Swam & Swam-S products.

We are very sorry for the inconvenience.

We confirm that the only legally authorized distributor of the above products is by contract Samplemodeling. Any other distribution would infringe Samplemodeling's exclusivity rights.

Technical assistance to current owners of Swam instruments will be provided as usual.

Nothing changes for Samplemodeling Kontakt-based instruments.

Sincerely,
Giorgio Tommasini & Peter Siedlaczek.

"


----------



## d.healey (Nov 25, 2017)

Lee Blaske said:


> Didn't see any other posts about this. Did this just happen?"


Look harder


----------



## Daisser (Nov 25, 2017)

d.healey said:


> Look harder



Oh no, I have been looking at the violin for a long time. I hope they either release it as a kontakt instrument or this gets resolved.


----------



## MarcelM (Nov 25, 2017)

http://www.swamengine.com/

audio modelling does its own business now.


----------



## Daisser (Nov 25, 2017)

Ahh, I see, ty


----------



## Lee Blaske (Nov 25, 2017)

Heroix said:


> http://www.swamengine.com/
> 
> audio modelling does its own business now.



How does this work going forward, though? The message on the SampleModeling page suggests that there's some kind of legal battle going on. Is it safe to buy from AudioModeling? 

And, if you previously bought SWAM plug-ins from SampleModeling, will you continue to be able to get updates, etc., from them? Or, will people who bought SWAM products from SampleModeling also be able to get customer support from AudioModeling?


----------



## MarcelM (Nov 25, 2017)

those are questions i cant answer, but i would guess you get support from audio modelling if its an instrument they are selling now. also i wouldnt see a problem buying from them, but thats just me.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Nov 25, 2017)

Heroix said:


> those are questions i cant answer, but i would guess you get support from audio modelling if its an instrument they are selling now. also i wouldnt see a problem buying from them, but thats just me.



Well, this part of SampleModeling's statement makes me worry, though...

"We confirm that the only legally authorized distributor of the above products is by contract Samplemodeling. Any other distribution would infringe Samplemodeling's exclusivity rights."

If a court challenge affirms that, what happens to people who bought licenses from AudioModeling in the interim?


----------



## MarcelM (Nov 25, 2017)

good question, i dunno.


----------



## Pablocrespo (Nov 25, 2017)

I bought from samplemodeling and just downloaded the 2.0 string from audiomodeling 



Lee Blaske said:


> And, if you previously bought SWAM plug-ins from SampleModeling, will you continue to be able to get updates, etc., from them? Or, will people who bought SWAM products from SampleModeling also be able to get customer support from AudioModeling?


bought


----------



## bvaughn0402 (Nov 25, 2017)

I have tried on 3 different browsers to get the account setup at Audiomodeling to work.

Nothing works.

It is almost like it doesn't like my username I'm picking. I guess ... the submit button won't work.


----------



## bvaughn0402 (Nov 25, 2017)

I've tried with Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, and nada.


----------



## Ben H (Nov 25, 2017)

I was able to register fine with FF57 on Windows 10.
Maybe the password requirements are tripping you up?

Password MUST be at least 8 characters long AND
At least one capital AND one lowercase letter AND
At least one number AND
At least one special character


----------



## pmcrockett (Nov 25, 2017)

Lee Blaske said:


> And, if you previously bought SWAM plug-ins from SampleModeling, will you continue to be able to get updates, etc., from them? Or, will people who bought SWAM products from SampleModeling also be able to get customer support from AudioModeling?


Support, at least as far as downloads for updates go, has always come from Audio Modeling rather than Samplemodeling even when the latter was the distributor. When you set up an account with Audio Modeling's new system, it asks you to enter your existing licenses and associates them with the account.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Nov 25, 2017)

pmcrockett said:


> Support, at least as far as downloads for updates go, has always come from Audio Modeling rather than Samplemodeling even when the latter was the distributor. When you set up an account with Audio Modeling's new system, it asks you to enter your existing licenses and associates them with the account.



Thanks for that info! I set up an account, and registered all of my instruments. Worked like a charm (used Safari, and had at least 8 characters, a capital letter, number and extra character). It correctly acknowledged the keys that were in use. Downloaded the 2.0 updates for Violin, Viola and Cello. Only issue there was they downloaded as .zip.html, so I just had to change them to .zip, and it worked fine. Everything installed, and I'm up and running.


----------



## holywilly (Nov 25, 2017)

Pablocrespo said:


> I bought from samplemodeling and just downloaded the 2.0 string from audiomodeling
> 
> 
> bought


Somehow my registered account won’t work at the new audiomodeling site, I purchased swam instruments back in 2015.


----------



## paoling (Nov 26, 2017)

I've made Lele aware of this topic, I'm sure he will reply soon for your issues. About the legal stuff, I guess that also Lele will have something to say about it


----------



## lelepar (Nov 26, 2017)

Hello everybody,

as for the legal stuff (and any other private relationship) between Audio Modeling and Samplemodeling, we believe that customers should not be involved at all. We believe that a company should never post publicly such private issues, especially if things are still ongoing.

That said, we can guarantee that SWAM products have been always property of Stefano Lucato and Emanuele Parravicini (myself), now administrators of Audio Modeling.
All your keys and authorization data have been always safely stored on our servers. Just create a new account on our new Customer Portal ( https://my.audiomodeling.com ) and register your products using the SWAM license keys you still own: you will be able to manage all authorizations and get the latest updates from there in a super-handy way.

BTW: from now on, we provide a SINGLE license key that can be authorized TWICE! So you do not need to manage two keys for the same product anymore 

This video shows briefly the new Customer Portal features: 

As for the .zip.html issue on Safari, we are still working on it, and it will be fixed very soon.

If you experience any other issue, please write to [email protected] , we will take care of any request.

Hope this has clarified most of your doubts.

Best,
Emanuele
_Audio Modeling
www.audiomodeling.com_


----------



## stixman (Nov 26, 2017)

Most helpful and appreciated


----------



## holywilly (Nov 26, 2017)

Great! Now I can update my violin to version 2.0


----------



## Lee Blaske (Nov 26, 2017)

Hope everything gets worked out to the satisfaction of all parties. I do like the new website. Much easier to buy the products, now. Only thing missing is all the audio demos.


----------



## EuropaWill (Nov 26, 2017)

Does version 2.0 improve the sound or realism of the instruments?


----------



## lelepar (Nov 27, 2017)

Lee Blaske said:


> I do like the new website. Much easier to buy the products, now. Only thing missing is all the audio demos.



Thank you!
New audio demos are on the way...


----------



## Vardaro (Nov 30, 2017)

lelepar said:


> We believe that a company should never post publicly such private issues, especially if things are still ongoing.


I can't agree. At a time when more and more libraries are authorised on line in "real time"(e.g.Kontakt libraries), I shall not take the risk of transfering my loyalties until this is sorted out.


----------



## robgb (Nov 30, 2017)

EuropaWill said:


> Does version 2.0 improve the sound or realism of the instruments?


To my ear they certainly do.


----------



## robgb (Nov 30, 2017)

Vardaro said:


> I can't agree. At a time when more and more libraries are authorised on line in "real time"(e.g.Kontakt libraries), I shall not take the risk of transfering my loyalties until this is sorted out.


To each his own. Either way, you bought the product and own the license. And if you register with Audio Modeling you get the update to 2.0 on the strings, which sound very, very good. Even better than before.

Honestly, these guys created and maintained these libraries and I see nothing wrong with registering with them to get the updates.


----------



## Polkasound (Nov 30, 2017)

Vardaro said:


> I shall not take the risk of transfering my loyalties until this is sorted out.



You wouldn't be transferring anything. Audio Modeling has always owned the SWAM instruments and maintained the user licenses for them. The issue between AM and SM is apparently over product distribution. SM claims to be the exclusive distributor of SWAM instruments by contract, and as we all know, AM is now selling SWAM instruments on their own website. How this gets resolved is a private matter. Regardless, I'm sure your licenses are safe with each company respectively.


-Editorial-

I wonder if the split had anything to do with discount sales. Sample Modeling never, ever runs discount sales, which meant Audio Modeling could never enjoy an income boost around Black Friday or during the holidays. Now I'm not saying Sample Modeling is doing anything "wrong," but Audio Modeling got $888.00 of my money this Black Friday. Sample Modeling got $0. Hmmm....


----------



## Ben H (Nov 30, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> I wonder if the split had anything to do with discount sales.



It is not to with the discount sales, it is to do with the Roli BLOCKS.

There was an official statement originally posted on the Sample Modeling forums about this

*EDIT: *Found the link: http://forum.samplemodeling.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39570


----------



## EuropaWill (Nov 30, 2017)

robgb said:


> To my ear they certainly do.


Rob can you post a before and after using the 2.0 to hear how the sound has changed? Can you re-render something you already did in the older version with the newer version? Very curious what has changed, I don't believe there are any demo's anywhere of the v2.0. Thanks!


----------



## Erik (Dec 1, 2017)

EuropaWill said:


> Rob can you post a before and after using the 2.0 to hear how the sound has changed? Can you re-render something you already did in the older version with the newer version? Very curious what has changed, I don't believe there are any demo's anywhere of the v2.0. Thanks!



I have uploaded a track with 5 x a small part of the Sonata for violin and piano of Brahms. 

I used the SWAM violin in the first four tracks. The first one is in version 1, the other in the latest release 2.0. As a bonus a transposed version of this work for latest SWAM viola and piano.
O:00 Violin 1.0
0:40 VeneziaS2
1:19 FirenzeS1
1:58 CremonaS2
2:37 Viola VeneziaS2

At your service!


----------



## robgb (Dec 1, 2017)

I think this is the problem. Scroll down to where is says SOUNDS and you'll see something familiar...

https://roli.com/products/blocks/seaboard-block


----------



## robgb (Dec 1, 2017)

Erik said:


> I have uploaded a track with 5 x a small part of the Sonata for violin and piano of Brahms.
> 
> I used the SWAM violin in the first four tracks. The first one is in version 1, the other in the latest release 2.0. As a bonus a transposed version of this work for latest SWAM viola and piano.
> O:00 Violin 1.0
> ...



Thanks for getting me off the hook.  Beautiful piece, by the way. Love the sound of the Venezia.


----------



## EuropaWill (Dec 1, 2017)

Erik said:


> I have uploaded a track with 5 x a small part of the Sonata for violin and piano of Brahms.
> 
> I used the SWAM violin in the first four tracks. The first one is in version 1, the other in the latest release 2.0. As a bonus a transposed version of this work for latest SWAM viola and piano.
> O:00 Violin 1.0
> ...



Thank you very much Erik. This helps. I do hear a slight improvement, but fundamentally the legato transitions, bow/rosin sound and general sound of the instrument especially in the lower register hasn't improved to my ears. I was hoping for a bigger improvement on realism but this wasn't it. Thanks again for posting the A/B comparison, its much appreciated!


----------



## Vardaro (Dec 1, 2017)

Hmm. I'm only just now setting up a 64-bit system.
Just to say, I found the first exract the best played, but the second the best sounding.
I'm still not at all impressed by the viola. I think it's the note-ons: in the "real thing" they are very varied: smooth re-bows are subtelly different from chains of notes in one stroke. Ithink I t's not just bow noise, but slight pitch-bends, and out of tune harmonics, for the first 1/4 sec. (Norman Pickering: The Bowed String). Not just added noise, but slight "dirt" inside the tone.

Masterful "live" playing, though.


----------



## SoundChris (Dec 1, 2017)

I really love the brass and wind instruments - got them all now since i completed the collection this B.F. with the Flutes, Clarinets and Reeds. The only instrument that i always found hard to work with was the trumpet which IMO had a quite harsh tone. I never got the sound right. Thats why I hope there will be a new version for the swam engine in the future that also has got that warm sound out of the box. Definitely looking forward to see lots of new instruments there!


----------



## robgb (Dec 10, 2017)

EuropaWill said:


> I was hoping for a bigger improvement on realism but this wasn't it.


I honestly think the only way you're ever going to get better "realism" is to hire a violinist and record the real thing.


----------



## HiEnergy (Dec 11, 2017)

omiroad said:


> As a fan and owner...


Fandom doesn't count. What counts is your money...


----------



## Giorgio Tommasini (Dec 11, 2017)

omiroad,

you weren't called a troll. After you posted in Samplemodeling's forum 9 times, asking the same question, insisting that we should give Audiomodeling for free the Impulse Responses that we developed in several months of hard work, and that belong to us, we reminded with a smile that trolling was not allowed.
Thereafter, you posted again, asking the same question. And you were banned, according to the forum rules after a warning had been issued.

We also tried to politely explain the situation to our customers, based on undeniable facts:

Dear friends,

it looks like the reasons behind what recently occurred are not yet clear to many.

It was not, by any means, the result of our decision. We friendly collaborated with the Swam team for several years. My collaboration with Stefano Lucato, who I still consider as a friend, started in 2003. We did together the Stradivari and the Gofriller, real breakthroughs at that time, and kept on collaborating till November 23rd, 2017. For example, the Sax Brothers were created on his own initiative, using an innovative approach. But all the samples were processed by myself in order to cope with this technique. The same collaboration was applied to the development of all Swam and Swam-S instruments, as can be easily demonstrated.

As to what happened, and in the hope of finally wind up this debate, we would like to draw your attention to some sentences that we already wrote in this thread (see the posts written by the "Webmaster"). They are crucial to understand the most important facts which led to the present situation:

"We wrote already in this thread about the one-sided breach of the contract which suddenly (within 24 hours) blocked our sales of Swam-based instruments despite our exclusive distribution rights till the end of 2018".

"These IRs belong to Samplemodeling. We put forward a proposal which would allow AM to continue using them."

"Did you perform the update upon Samplemodeling's request? Not really. Audio Modeling asked you to update."

"This update was their initiative, about which we were not informed."

"We proposed Audio Modeling to friendly end this dispute by mutually signing an early termination of our valid contract. This would allow them to legitimately distribute their Swam products."

By carefully reading all the above, you can judge yourself whether Samplemodeling hasn't tried everything possible to favour their customers, putting our pride and interests behind their safety and their rights.

Giorgio


----------



## bflat (Dec 12, 2017)

Just discovered on the SWAM engine site: https://goo.gl/yUARSt


----------



## bflat (Dec 12, 2017)

weird, the system did not allow me to publish the original link...


----------



## thereus (Dec 12, 2017)

Oh dear...


----------



## Ben H (Dec 15, 2017)

omiroad said:


> The entire forum is gone now...
> 
> https://samplemodeling.com/forum/



Wrong address. 

The correct one is: https://forum.samplemodeling.com/


----------



## Ben H (Dec 15, 2017)

It's been that address for a while now. Maybe their redirect is broken?

Yep. Link appears to be broken.


----------



## Giorgio Tommasini (Dec 15, 2017)

Ben H said:


> It's been that address for a while now. Maybe their redirect is broken?
> 
> Yep. Link appears to be broken.


----------



## Giorgio Tommasini (Dec 15, 2017)

Fixed. Thanks for reporting this.

Giorgio


----------



## thereus (Dec 15, 2017)

Not sure we are seeing the full picture from either side here, but it's not our business. Hope both sides are ok.


----------



## mverta (Dec 24, 2017)

We don't own things anymore. We sign binding contracts we had no part in negotiating and which can be changed at whim for any reason, for the privilege of conditionally getting to license software. And if we don't like it, we can fuck right off. It really gives one a warm, communal feeling.


----------



## snattack (Jan 27, 2018)

omiroad said:


> I think it's definitely our business what impact it has on our products.
> 
> According to SM it is very illegal to use the body IR files I paid for in the 2.0 version of SWAM Strings. Because screw us for finding a way to keep using updated software with the content we bought.
> 
> ...




According to the EULA at https://www.samplemodeling.com/en/eula.php at least, I can't find any problems using the IR in other instruments beside the "guarantee" section:

"All guarantee claims on behalf of the Licensee become invalid if he tampers with the licensed software, or modifies them in any way whatsoever, regardless of the extent of such modifications. The translation of the licensed software into any other program language is also to be regarded as a modification."

And not even that is clear, if the IR is counted as part of the "software" or if this regulates programming code.


----------



## pmcrockett (Jan 27, 2018)

snattack said:


> According to the EULA at https://www.samplemodeling.com/en/eula.php at least, I can't find any problems using the IR in other instruments beside the "guarantee" section:
> 
> "All guarantee claims on behalf of the Licensee become invalid if he tampers with the licensed software, or modifies them in any way whatsoever, regardless of the extent of such modifications. The translation of the licensed software into any other program language is also to be regarded as a modification."
> 
> And not even that is clear, if the IR is counted as part of the "software" or if this regulates programming code.



The EULA has a clause that says your license to a previous version of the software is invalidated by installing an updated version. This certainly covers paid/purchased updates but also probably covers minor unpaid updates such as the one that changes IRs.


SWAM EULA said:


> If you are owner of Samplemodeling software products, which qualify you to update or to upgrade to the product or the product bundle licensed by this Agreement, the qualifying licences of your software products will expire by accepting the following contractual conditions. Any qualifying product can be used once only to contract an update or an upgrade offer.


----------



## Vardaro (Jan 27, 2018)

snattack said:


> And not even that is clear, if the IR is counted as part of the "software" or if this regulates programming code.



I think "borrowing" an IR would be the same as "borrowing" a sample..


----------



## snattack (Jan 30, 2018)

pmcrockett said:


> The EULA has a clause that says your license to a previous version of the software is invalidated by installing an updated version. This certainly covers paid/purchased updates but also probably covers minor unpaid updates such as the one that changes IRs.



Well, it's not the same EULA as Audiomodeling, and so, it's not the same software in update version. Not what Audiomodeling claims anyway.

From what I can understand from the EULA, you're licensing the use of the software, and so, you're licensing the IR for use. At least I can't find anything that points to the fact that it's forbidden (neither by law or by the EULA) to use parts of what you're licensing together with other samples/instruments. Only that you will not receive support when tampering with the software, or the fact that you're not allowed to distribute separate naked samples.

If you were to distribute the IR, that would fall under the clause of renting/ledning/distribution, and would of course not be allowed. But using the IR in your production, doesn't say anything about that.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2018)

Counting peas is boring.

Many people meet in their lives and decide to move on together. Then come events, whereupon they separate again. That's quite normal and I'm not allowed to criticize that.
From now on, we can marvel at what both companies will bring us in the future.

For my taste, all is well! This is the real life ... .


----------



## Saxer (Jan 30, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> For my taste, all is well! This is the real life ... .


For me too. And both companies work great together in my template!


----------



## Erick - BVA (Feb 1, 2018)

Hmm. Just listened to the demos of all of the SWAM instruments. Sound fake and flat. I don't get it. It's like the Synful orchestra. It sounds like something else, almost like the same instrument in an alternative universe (similar for sure), but not quite like the real thing. A good alternative, but no substitute for the real thing or well sampled/scripted ones.


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 1, 2018)

Sibelius19 said:


> Hmm. Just listened to the demos of all of the SWAM instruments. Sound fake and flat. I don't get it. It's like the Synful orchestra. It sounds like something else, almost like the same instrument in an alternative universe (similar for sure), but not quite like the real thing. A good alternative, but no substitute for the real thing or well sampled/scripted ones.



They react better when used with breath controllers or surfaces like the Seaboard or Linnstrument.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Feb 1, 2018)

gamma-ut said:


> They react better when used with breath controllers or surfaces like the Seaboard or Linnstrument.



Yeah, hearing the demos soloed is quite different than having them in a big arrangement. I suppose they are close enough that within an arrangement and with some reverb, it's hard tell the difference. 

Yes, some libraries are very sloppy with sample editing and structure. However, I think Virhamonic's Bohemian violin is an example of how this can be achieved successfully. There is something more "present" and full to the real thing for me, hard to explain. Not that the synthetic stuff is bad. Some of it actually sounds pretty good.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 1, 2018)

Not sure what you guys are talking about, SWAM uses samples


----------



## Erick - BVA (Feb 1, 2018)

d.healey said:


> Not sure what you guys are talking about, SWAM uses samples


In what way though? Is it hybrid?


----------



## Erick - BVA (Feb 1, 2018)

d.healey said:


> Not sure what you guys are talking about, SWAM uses samples


Well, just read the whole meaning of SWAM. They seem to use real samples (it's a little vague on that point), but it does all sorts of things to it, which essentially renders it synthetic --in my opinion.


----------



## storyteller (Feb 1, 2018)

While I have great respect for the developers ingenuity and love the sound able to be produced by SWAM, I can't help but see history repeating itself.  Another company, another partnership, another name... but it is the same people at the heart of the issue. Years ago, I bought the Garritan Stradivari and Gofriller Cello (which is the same technology behind SWAM and the same developer). Both products were shortly discontinued and no longer supported due to an undisclosed fallout between the partnership of Garritan and the developers. They were revolutionary for their time! (and still stand up in compositions today). No one really knew what happened...

But... when you look at the common thread between the that situation and the Sample Modeling/Audio Modeling situation today, it does not leave me with any confidence that the underlying issues have been "resolved" with the creation of a new company. Honestly, whatever the fallout reasons may be, the customers are the ones that have been hurt over the years. That's not good parenting or being a good steward. Just my $0.02.... but still relevant to those who may not have been aware of the situation from somewhere around 2008.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 1, 2018)

Sibelius19 said:


> In what way though? Is it hybrid?


It's not quite hybrid. They record samples and then use things like scripting and modulators to create different articulations and techniques such as legato and vibrato. If you have some of the old Kontakt versions of these instruments you can go into the edit mode and have a look around to see how they work. The trumpet mutes for example are created using impulse responses and convolution reverb. These techniques are quite standard and used by several developers (including me), one of the advantages of the sample/audio modeling samples though is that they were recorded in an anechoic environment and the dynamic layers have been phase aligned, something that is not easily accessible for most developers.


----------



## KeithAdv (Feb 1, 2018)

storyteller said:


> While I have great respect for the developers ingenuity and love the sound able to be produced by SWAM, I can't help but see history repeating itself.  Another company, another partnership, another name... but it is the same people at the heart of the issue. Years ago, I bought the Garritan Stradivari and Gofriller Cello (which is the same technology behind SWAM and the same developer). Both products were shortly discontinued and no longer supported due to an undisclosed fallout between the partnership of Garritan and the developers. They were revolutionary for their time! (and still stand up in compositions today). No one really knew what happened...
> 
> But... when you look at the common thread between the that situation and the Sample Modeling/Audio Modeling situation today, it does not leave me with any confidence that the underlying issues have been "resolved" with the creation of a new company. Honestly, whatever the fallout reasons may be, the customers are the ones that have been hurt over the years. That's not good parenting or being a good steward. Just my $0.02.... but still relevant to those who may not have been aware of the situation from somewhere around 2008.



Exactly my thoughts, as well.


----------



## kurtvanzo (Feb 1, 2018)

Sibelius19 said:


> Well, just read the whole meaning of SWAM. They seem to use real samples (it's a little vague on that point), but it does all sorts of things to it, which essentially renders it synthetic --in my opinion.



I feel the same way about the Swam Strings, BUT do not assume the same for the Swam Saxes. Perhaps it’s because sax is naturallly brassy, but the Swam saxes are particularly good, from the baritone to the soprano (though the soprano is the weakest). Even in a very exposed piece, between the sound and the controllability (adding even growl control that is very convincing)- it is very convincing. Far beyond what I get from others. My only regret is there are only 4 (bari, alto, tenor, soprano) without other variations or models. A friend plays a silver sax that is much warmer sounding than the average sax, wish I had samples of it in Swam. But with all the controls available I can get close. 

This is a good demo, esp considering he’s using the soprano, which to me is the weakest of the 4. Well worth checking out.


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 1, 2018)

I agree with Kurtvanzo, some of the instruments are flawlessly executed, most notably the brass. Other instruments are lacking. For example the flutes in their lower registers sound like a weird clarinet/oboe hybrid, and some strings don't quite sound right in lower registers either.

I personally don't care if a library is sampled, modeled, or synthesized, what really matters is the sound. The brass is unbeatable so whatever is going on under the hood, it's perfect. Not all the instruments are to my taste though.


----------



## Polkasound (Feb 1, 2018)

Sibelius19 said:


> A good alternative, but no substitute for the real thing or well sampled/scripted ones.



In my opinion, no SWAM or sampled instrument is a 100% substitute for the real thing, and I agree that a well-sampled instrument can have a sound that's better than most SWAM instruments. But the SWAM instruments have the modeling advantage, which means you're not fighting with volume and tone inconsistencies among adjacent samples/layers. Everything works so smoothly.

Without adjusting anything, SWAM instruments sound good, but will not sit in a mix without being synthy and boxy. They're just a blank canvas at this point. The parameters of the instruments need adjusting to take advantage of the power of the SWAM engine, and EQ/processing is a must. When done well, the results can be amazing. So even though other solo string and woodwind instruments can have a more desirable sound, the smooth playability and flexibility of the SWAM strings and woodwinds make them some of the best VI purchases I've ever made.

I want to echo Kurtvanzo's comment about the saxes. A virtual solo saxophone performance, in my opinion, _requires_ modeling. I've struggled with good sampled sax libraries over the years, spending hours and hours editing MIDI controller data to make the sampled instruments work as smoothly as possible, but sampling only goes so far. The SWAM saxes changed everything for me. The raw sound of the tenor sax is as good as the best samples out there, but the playability... my goodness, man! There's nothing else close to it. From the softest to the loudest dynamics, and through all the articulations, it sounds like one fluid performance.

The SWAM flute and clarinet don't sound as pure and open as I'd like them, but their playability is as good as the saxes.

My next purchase will be Sample Modeling's brass. I need a trumpet for Oberkrainer-style music. I've gotten as close as I can get by using the Trumpet 2 from Session Horns Pro and the "FortePianoCrescendo 4 Beats" articulation, but it requires manually editing each attack on a note-by-note basis. Based on how well the AM clarinet works in the Oberkrainer style, I'm sure the SM trumpet will get the job done.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 1, 2018)

Polkasound said:


> The raw sound of the tenor sax is as good as the best samples out there.


I'll say it again in case you missed it. They are samples.


----------



## kurtvanzo (Feb 1, 2018)

Polkasound said:


> In my opinion, no SWAM or sampled instrument is a 100% substitute for the real thing, and I agree that a well-sampled instrument can have a sound that's better than most SWAM instruments. But the SWAM instruments have the modeling advantage, which means you're not fighting with volume and tone inconsistencies among adjacent samples/layers. Everything works so smoothly.
> 
> Without adjusting anything, SWAM instruments sound good, but will not sit in a mix without being synthy and boxy. They're just a blank canvas at this point. The parameters of the instruments need adjusting to take advantage of the power of the SWAM engine, and EQ/processing is a must. When done well, the results can be amazing. So even though other solo string and woodwind instruments can have a more desirable sound, the smooth playability and flexibility of the SWAM strings and woodwinds make them some of the best VI purchases I've ever made.
> 
> ...



I agree. And the Trumpet was my first purchase. Version 3 fixed a lot of what was lacking with it, making it the best sounding (and most controllable) Trumpet out there. Only downside is since it’s in Kontakt all the controls and settings are hidden in pages, while the Swam controls are all laid out on one page, a much better setup IMHO. But the sound (and the many trumpet variations that are modeled) is great. Only wish audio modeling would remake it for Swam (I know, not going to happen).


----------



## kurtvanzo (Feb 1, 2018)

d.healey said:


> I'll say it again in case you missed it. They are samples.


I think he knows, he may just be saying “as good as the best out there”. I’d have to agree. All of their brass is worth a look. Whether your doing an exposed piece, a brass section, or adding to other libraries (including orchestral). They add a lot of clarity and definition to section lines.


----------



## chrisphan (Feb 1, 2018)

d.healey said:


> I'll say it again in case you missed it. They are samples.


I'm not sure if that's true? From my understanding, they use samples only at the beginning stage as a reference for synthesis. Each SWAM string instrument is under a 100MB


----------



## Polkasound (Feb 1, 2018)

d.healey said:


> I'll say it again in case you missed it. They are samples.



Yes, SWAM saxes are based on samples. I don't recall saying anything to the contrary.


----------



## bvaughn0402 (Feb 1, 2018)

So ... what exactly is the state of affairs with this? I tried a few months ago to download the update, but I couldn't get it to register for me. Now, I'm not sure where I should be going, or who to follow ...


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Feb 1, 2018)

*HELP !* We cannot swam...


----------



## Polkasound (Feb 1, 2018)

Interesting fact: There is a .07% chance that one of those instruments, upon reaching the ocean floor, will hit an accordion.


----------



## Lotias (Feb 1, 2018)

kurtvanzo said:


> Only wish audio modeling would remake it for Swam (I know, not going to happen).


What gave you the idea that it's not going to happen? After asking AudioModeling in an email about any plans for SWAM brass, I was told they had plans to release a brass instrument sometime 2018.


----------



## kurtvanzo (Feb 1, 2018)

Lotias said:


> What gave you the idea that it's not going to happen? After asking AudioModeling in an email about any plans for SWAM brass, I was told they had plans to release a brass instrument sometime 2018.



I wasn’t aware of anything new. But the developers of the Sample Modeling Trumpet stated after the V.3 release that many had asked if there would be a Swam version, but due to the complications of the product (joint venture?) and thier early decision to go with Kontakt, it would be too difficult to get the samples working in the Swam engine (perhaps a different recording technique is require- how legato is recorded can be an issue for one).

But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t record any new brass. Now that Audio modeleing is seperate from SM, perhaps now they can persue that without having another trumpet “in house” or any other contractual limits. Personally I think the swam engine is best suited for brass. I’m looking forward to seeing new releases from them.


----------



## Vardaro (Feb 1, 2018)

Swam (woodwind) uses samples, Swam-s (strings) does not. Pity.


----------



## robgb (Feb 2, 2018)

Vardaro said:


> Swam (woodwind) uses samples, Swam-s (strings) does not. Pity.


Why is it a pity? The SWAM strings are fantastic instruments that play and sound great.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 2, 2018)

kurtvanzo said:


> (perhaps a different recording technique is require- how legato is recorded can be an issue for one).


There are no legato samples in these instrument. Because we can't see what samples the SWAM system uses it's not possible for us to determine what is missing with the current brass samples that would be required to make them SWAMable.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Feb 2, 2018)

Polkasound said:


> Yes, SWAM saxes are based on samples. I don't recall saying anything to the contrary.


 Technically, even if it were strictly modeled after samples, it would "based on samples"  


kurtvanzo said:


> I feel the same way about the Swam Strings, BUT do not assume the same for the Swam Saxes. Perhaps it’s because sax is naturallly brassy, but the Swam saxes are particularly good, from the baritone to the soprano (though the soprano is the weakest). Even in a very exposed piece, between the sound and the controllability (adding even growl control that is very convincing)- it is very convincing. Far beyond what I get from others. My only regret is there are only 4 (bari, alto, tenor, soprano) without other variations or models. A friend plays a silver sax that is much warmer sounding than the average sax, wish I had samples of it in Swam. But with all the controls available I can get close.
> 
> This is a good demo, esp considering he’s using the soprano, which to me is the weakest of the 4. Well worth checking out.



Yes, I've noticed the brass sound really awesome. They may even convert me


----------



## reddognoyz (Feb 2, 2018)

when you are updating the audiomodeling strings make sure you update from 1.3,( or 1.03 not positive but the last incarnation before 2.0). I had issues crashing vep, but tech sup told me to update to the latest 1.x version and save my metas with this version before going to 2.0 this solved the issue i was having. Your results may vary.


----------



## Vardaro (Feb 2, 2018)

robgb said:


> Why is it a pity? The SWAM strings are fantastic instruments that play and sound great.


The strings play very well indeed, and sound pleasant, but the attacks, transitions, and sustains sound nothing like the real strings I play and hear.
The Swam violin can fool me, when set back in a mix, but not the lower strings.
The woods and saxes retain the "grain" of their samples: to my ears, they could have based the strings on a cunning selection of samples too.


----------



## Vardaro (Feb 2, 2018)

d.healey said:


> There are no legato samples in these instrument. Because we can't see what samples the SWAM system uses it's not possible for us to determine what is missing with the current brass samples that would be required to make them SWAMable.


I doubt if SM would just hand over their brass samples to AM, any more than their string body IR's


----------



## d.healey (Feb 2, 2018)

Vardaro said:


> I doubt if SM would just hand over their brass samples to AM, any more than their string body IR's


That's another good point!


----------



## paoling (Feb 2, 2018)

Well let's keep in mind that the algorithms involved for Brass and Strings are worlds apart. If you look at the modelling approach, modelling a piano, a brass or a violin have very little in common, so you can't just keep the same approach for the brass and apply it straight to the strings and viceversa.

There are formulas that apply to a certain category of instruments and formulas that apply to other instruments. It's a similar thing with samples, there are instruments families that sound nice with crossfades (ensembles, brass), others that have a nice response with fake legato (trombone for example), others which you can phase align to get nice results with dynamic control (brass, woodwinds). In my experience, I found Phase Align impossible to do with solo strings, due to the different phases of all the harmonics of the string sound. But for example, it seems that a nice discovery of Giorgio Tommasini was a method to align those phases. But the guys at AudioModeling have adopted a total different approach to this problem which, as they know, it kind fascinates me, especially because it seems more open to further developments.

So a good developer always tries to study the problem and how to use his tools to get there in the most efficient way.


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 2, 2018)

Great post from Fluffy's Paoling!


----------



## Vardaro (Feb 3, 2018)

Paoling, from reading (and trying to follow!) a paper (Julius O. Smith) on digital waveguide synthesis, and a whole book (Norman Pickering) on the bowed string, I suspect that to recreate bowed string tone from scratch implies a sort of controlled randomisation: inharmonicity (even under the bow-hair with its semi-forced vibration?), pitch bends (string distortion) , frequency dependent inertia (from string and wood), and unpredictable phase shifts; not to mention the human element even in the best bow-strokes.

Swam-S strings (like those of Synful) lack tonal realism, compared with the Swam winds.

I suspect that SM's use of a reduced selection of samples, heavily scripted (more heavily than for their brass) is the way to go for bowed strings.


----------



## paoling (Feb 3, 2018)

About the rules behind string resonances I have no idea of what is implied. I just know that the harmonics run and bounce back to the strings according to the played note and interact with each other in many different ways. The digital waveguide synthesis, for what I know, is designed to emulate blowed instruments, but I really don't know better.

In my opinion the SWAM Strings can be extremely realistic, but as there are a lot of parameters to play that you should be a very skilled player to control every bit of your performance. In the worst case scenario you are transposing the same skillset of playing a real violin to a MIDI hardware control.

What I like of their approach is that you can optionally make the instrument to sound "bad", like overblowing a flute, scratching on the strings, because you are emulating the behaviour of an instrument. Really cool. Another thing I like to think is that we sample developers try to sample a musician, like Embertone did with Joshua Bell, so we try to capture a musician for his way to play more than creating a replica of an instrument. So for us it's perfectly reasonable to sample a clarinet two times if the performer's style is really different, because we are not just recording an instrument, but trying to capture some of the musicality of the performer.

Then there's one big problem that it's currently impossible to fix with realtime playing on every instrument: a real performer reads and knows what is about to play before actual playing a note. For example in one instrument like the Chris Hein Strings which have lot of keyswitches, if there would be a way to make the instrument to "learn" the piece and auto-select the various bow strokes according to the playing, it would automatically create a keyswitch map that could "render" a realistic rendition of a certain piece. I've designed something like that for our 2.0 version of the violin, but in the end we lacked some of the needed articulations to make it really effective.

It would be cool to have a system where you play a line with a very synthy but responsive sound, press "render" and see the part "performed" realistically by the instrument. Then you can make the changes you want, press render again and listen the results.

There are two kind of musicians with vi: the performers, which are very skilled players which enjoy instruments like SWAM, SM, with all the controls provided and they can play a realistic part on the fly with great expressiveness. The results lively and expressive, because there are elements of improvisation and performances tend to be unquantized most of the times. And then there are the "composers" which tend to a more slow but crafted approach, writing the part on layers, adding CC expression later, edit a lot, and so on. The results are detailed, structured and well crafted. Like the difference between Pianoteq and Sampled Pianos, or between Jazz and Classical Music. The first ones "emulate" realism, since expression is already there, the second ones emulate expression, since, hopefully, realism is already there. The two categories often overlap a bit, but the instruments available on the market usually tend to please one kind of category or the other most of the times. For example as a musician I tend to be on the "composer" area and our instruments sometimes reflect that "slow and thoughful" approach.


----------



## paoling (Feb 3, 2018)

Rob I was thinking about you! :D


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 3, 2018)

Paoling, I've been thinking a lot about that and how we need to move beyond libraries that just react to notes as they come


----------



## Rob (Feb 3, 2018)

paoling said:


> Rob I was thinking about you! :D


Actually I felt like you were talking to me  
Ciao Paolo!


----------



## StefanoLucato (Feb 4, 2018)

.
To answer some questions 

AudioModeling Technologies (Sample/Physical Modeling)

SWT - Synchronous Waves Triggering:
- Saxophones on Kontakt (SaxBrothers)

SWAM - Synchronous Waves Acoustic Modeling
- SWAM v1: Reeds
- SWAM v2: Flutes
- SWAM S: Bowed Strings

The technology used in our instruments is indeed a combination of different techniques.
I started in 2007 with a technology called SWT - Synchronous Waves Triggering (a MultiVector Samples ReSynthesis) which was my first attempt to model samples in realtime. These instruments (SaxBrothers) were developed on Native Instrument Kontakt platform. Kontakt (that is a very good platform and basically an advanced sampler perfect for sample libraries) is non the best tool for this Synthesis technique, so I decided to make a proprietary engine. In 2009 I met Emanuele Parravicini and together begun the development of the SWAM engine.
SWAM, Synchronous Waves Acoustic Modeling (or now we prefer Synchronous Waves Audio Modeling) adds concepts of Physical Modeling to the MultiVector Sample technique. We made different versions of the engine, each one more suitable for a specific family of instruments.
Each version has different balance between Sample and Physical Modeling.
Reeds, that use engine version 1, is basically a Multivector Sample engine with some Physical Modeled Resonance elements and Behavioral modeling techniques.
Flutes use version 2 with a bigger component of physical modeling tecnique than sampling and in our opinion represent the best example of mixing between both techniques because we have sampled the lower dynamics on the first octave only and all other notes and dynamics are obtained by modeling this limited sampled material, through the obtainment of Overtones.
Lastly, Bowed Strings (our recent product) are made mainly with Physical Modeling approach plus some elements which exploit the SWAM technique.
We decided to 100% model Bowed Strings by WaveGuide Synthesis (a Physical Modeling method conceived by Prof. Julius O.Smith) because it was very difficult obtain the BowPressure parameter (Very important expression control) with other SWAM techniques.

Stefano Lucato
CEO
Audio Modeling
.


----------



## robgb (Feb 5, 2018)

Vardaro said:


> Swam-S strings (like those of Synful)


The SWAM strings are light years better than the Synful library in every way.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 5, 2018)

StefanoLucato said:


> .
> The technology used in our instruments is indeed a combination of different techniques.
> I started in 2007 with a technology called SWT - Synchronous Waves Triggering (a MultiVector Samples ReSynthesis) which was my first attempt to model samples in realtime. These instruments (SaxBrothers) were developed on Native Instrument Kontakt platform.


Very interesting, does this mean that the samples in the SaxBrothers (and presumably the brass libraries) are not the actual recordings of the instruments but are resynthesised from recordings?


----------



## muziksculp (Feb 5, 2018)

I'm curious how 'Synchronous Waves Triggering' which is the MultiVector Samples ReSynthesistechnology was integrated into Kontakt, since Kontakt is not an open source application/sampler ? was this achieved purely via scripting ? or ... ?

Also curious if there will be SWAM versions for solo Brass Instruments in the future ?


----------



## d.healey (Feb 5, 2018)

omiroad said:


> My assumptions... uses tricks like breaking samples apart per overtones, then playing them back all together.


No it doesn't 

I'm assuming all of the MultiVector stuff (whatever that is) was done outside of Kontakt to create the samples. Inside Kontakt there are just a bunch of regular samples mapped in an ordinary way with separate attack samples (this is not uncommon for many libraries). The scripting magic creates some very good synthetic legato, glides, and other articulations (the rips in particular are very good). There is also extensive use of Kontakt's modulators and filters which greatly enhance the effects created through scripting. I've only explored the Trumpet but I imagine the same or similar methods were used in all of the original brass instruments.

Kontakt's scripting is very limited btw, it can really only do three things - link user interface controls to Kontakt's backend controls (modulators, effects, etc.), turn notes on and off, and control the parameters of events (like note volume, pan, pitch etc.). Things like dynamics crossfades (which I often see people say are really well scripted in X library) are very rarely scripted because it's inefficient to do so, they are usually created using Kontakt's volume modulators. It used to be common to script legato crossfades but nowadays we tend to do that with flexible envelopes.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 5, 2018)

omiroad said:


> Then how come you can manipulate the overtones individually in the v3 instruments?.


Like I say, my experience is from the original trumpet which I don't believe has this overtone control (I wasn't aware of it until you just told me). I'd be interested to learn more about it.


----------



## robgb (Feb 5, 2018)

d.healey said:


> Like I say, my experience is from the original trumpet which I don't believe has this overtone control (I wasn't aware of it until you just told me). I'd be interested to learn more about it.


Isn't your brass library a combination of sampling and modeling? Whatever it is, it sounds great.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 5, 2018)

robgb said:


> Isn't your brass library a combination of sampling and modeling? Whatever it is, it sounds great.


Thanks. All the samples in my library are just regular samples recorded in a small studio, they aren't physically modeled, however I use synth/modeling techniques to create things like legato, glides, vibrato, stage positioning.


----------



## Quasar (Feb 5, 2018)

robgb said:


> The SWAM strings are light years better than the Synful library in every way.


I tried the Synful demo a while ago and it didn't appeal to me at all. Even if it were freeware or cost $1, I would rather not deal with it. Their "phrase remodeling reconstruction technology" or whatever it's called sounds ambitious, and perhaps one day it will come to a happy maturity. But it isn't there yet IMHO.


----------



## alextone (Feb 6, 2018)

StefanoLucato said:


> .
> To answer some questions
> 
> AudioModeling Technologies (Sample/Physical Modeling)
> ...






This may be a little offtopic, but are you considering, or have considered, building SWAM products for use in Native Linux (64bit)? 

I've recently gone full retro, and reverted to all my faithful and hardworking gig libraries using linuxsampler, after trying to install the latest Kontakt build with Wine, to no avail. I'm not on my own, and although NI are emphatic they don't, and will never, support linux, the preference of lib developers to monopolise potential sales of their fine products to NI means there's those of us (and them) who won't benefit from all that hard work, and NI, and other sampler providers, have no incentive to include a market of users that is growing all the time.
With the advent of native linux REAPER, along with heavy development in Ardour, Mixxbus, and other commercial operators getting on board (with the usual exception of NI), maybe now's the time to consider this? 

You're already building and creating instruments without NI, so you have an advantage, and the freedom, to decide for yourself, without having to limit yourself to their business model, and their business decisions.

2 Euros worth,

Alex.


----------



## Vardaro (Feb 7, 2018)

robgb said:


> The SWAM strings are light years better than the Synful library in every way.


robgb I certainly agree with that, but the basic grain of the tone of real strings is not there for me, particularly at the beginnings of notes and in the transitions. The actual timbre is OK, but it's all just too smooth and "plasticky", like good quality formica rather than wood..


----------



## Vardaro (Feb 7, 2018)

And Alex, 2 Euros is a huge increase on the usual 2 cents!!


----------



## robgb (Feb 7, 2018)

Vardaro said:


> The actual timbre is OK, but it's all just too smooth and "plasticky", like good quality formica rather than wood.


I just got a new floor installed made of luxury vinyl plank. Yet people who visit my house think it's wood. I'm the only one who knows it isn't. 
I think we could be picky and say that ALL solo string libraries sound fake to some degree. With the SWAM strings, however, I think the added realism of the playing overrides any failures in tone. 
But nothing will ever replace the real thing. There are always deficits.


----------



## alextone (Feb 8, 2018)

Vardaro said:


> And Alex, 2 Euros is a huge increase on the usual 2 cents!!



Inflation.

What can i say...


----------



## Vardaro (Feb 9, 2018)

robgb said:


> I just got a new floor installed made of luxury vinyl plank. Yet people who visit my house think it's wood. I'm the only one who knows it isn't.


OK I love an argument, but really convincing fake wood is usually based on mouldings and photos of _samples_, with enough round robins that our friends won't spot the identical "planks".

Seriously though, I am not good enough on a keyboard to dare live performance on a VI; I just want my mockups to sound like a decent recording of the kind of musicians I can't possibly afford to hire..


----------



## Vardaro (Feb 9, 2018)

omiroad said:


> If you just want to stitch samples together and call it a performance then I won't stop you. ;p


I don't call it a performance, but I want it to sound like one!
Both SM Brass and Swam winds get their textures from a small number of samples, then the modeling takes over to give us performance-like flexibilty.

Another point: realtime timbral shaping via the balance of harmonics can presumably replace x-fades of dynamic layers, and maybe the create the timbres of different "registers": e.g. moving from one string to another, or from one flute octave to another.
Nasality, on the otherhand, will come from formants in the body IR.


----------



## robgb (Feb 9, 2018)

Vardaro said:


> I just want my mockups to sound like a decent recording of the kind of musicians I can't possibly afford to hire..


That's all any mockup ever can be. But, truthfully, MOST listeners won't know the difference.


----------



## I like music (Feb 9, 2018)

robgb said:


> That's all any mockup ever can be. But, truthfully, MOST listeners won't know the difference.



This is actually something that worries me. If I show a "library-trained" person, or a musician, a mockup, I actually feel more comfortable. Why? Because I feel that precisely because they'll be able to spot that it is a mockup, they'll not confuse the quality of the mockup with the quality of my music.

That's why it always bothers me when a non-musician listens to mockups. I feel like the may not be able to distinguish the music from the technology that's trying to play it, and thus blame the lack of feeling/expression (whatever it is) on the music.

Or am I overthinking it?


----------



## robgb (Feb 9, 2018)

I like music said:


> Or am I overthinking it?


I don't know if you're overthinking it, but I do think the average listener is A LOT more forgiving than other musicians. Look, Quincy Jones just called The Beatles terrible musicians—a judgment that seems to be based on their ability to play (he said McCartney was a horrible bassist). I don't think there are too many listeners who would agree with him. It really all comes down to the music itself. Great music will transcend any deficiencies and apparently make other musicians envious.


----------



## jon wayne (Feb 9, 2018)

Its hard to take Quincy serious if he can't say his name and address without say [email protected]#$^% 5 times. Lost all respect for the dude.


----------



## X-Bassist (Feb 9, 2018)

robgb said:


> I don't know if you're overthinking it, but I do think the average listener is A LOT more forgiving than other musicians. Look, Quincy Jones just called The Beatles terrible musicians—a judgment that seems to be based on their ability to play (he said McCartney was a horrible bassist). I don't think there are too many listeners who would agree with him. It really all comes down to the music itself. Great music will transcend any deficiencies and apparently make other musicians envious.



I'm not sure Quincy's taken into account the time that has passed. Like most of us, I'm sure the Beatles weren't great musicians back when they were kids (under 25) learning thier craft "on the job". But I can believe 40 years of playing and touring hasn't improved things considerably. I remember musicians commenting when I was a kid how bad Ringo was at drums, but all these years later? I'm sure he can keep a beat. 

And yes, you'd think he would learn how to talk to reporters. Even Spielberg has that down.  Now they print everything.


----------



## thereus (Mar 29, 2018)

Quincy is er... very special.


----------

