# Promoting Sales and Marketing over Product Creators.



## Daniel James (Apr 22, 2018)

Hey All,

There has been a lot of talk recently about our small little niche of the world and more specifically marketing. I do feel like anytime a company in the sample industry gets a larger market share the innovation starts to make way for greater marketing. 

I can think of multiple sample companies off the top of my head who fit this path, who have become the 'industry standard' or at least take up the market share of the sample market. Once they get into this dominant position they seem to shift from coming up with great ideas to stand out to more run of the mill libraries but with greater marketing pushes. Not that its a problem, its their companies they can run it how they like....But what you do see is the companies who are innovating slowly push the dominant companies into a greater degree of irrelevance until the creative company takes their position as a market leader. 

The company who is now lead by marketing people will eventually have less innovative products to sell and either have to shift to being more innovative or face the irrelevance of being outdone by the competition....problem is the decision makers are people who sell things not people who create things. So the only real option to stay competitive is to shift focus from marketing to creation again (something we are seeing from certain companies who used to be more important but faded somewhat) BUT if you wait until you are on the downward trajectory to realise you need creatives in charge you are already going to be behind the curve of innovation set by those who have not only the creative talent but also now the experience of doing it for a long time.

So yeah as this video I found today suggests, a shift to marketing leading a company is great in the short term but risks longer term relevance (which in our competitive field is a _when_ not _if_ situation). This is a notion we have seen play out a few times and I hope the companies forging into the dominant positions of the market take heed of the past and don't repeat the same mistakes. 

Innovation should always lead the way.



What do you guys think? 

-DJ


----------



## blougui (Apr 22, 2018)

Apple is very about marketing yet has some other companies outdone Apple as far as innovation is concerned ?
Genuine question.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 22, 2018)

blougui said:


> Apple is very about marketing yet has some other companies outdone Apple as far as innovation is concerned ?
> Genuine question.



I would say Apple _was _a very product based company (at least while he was alive) and you can't deny that since his passing, the innovation of Apple has slowed and we are seeing greater marketing pushes on run of the mill products...leading to what feels like a decline (not drastic yet of course but its there) of Apple's relevance. 

My point in a general one those for our industry. Its not about Apple. Regardless of who says it, the point being made is accurate I think.

-DJ


----------



## blougui (Apr 22, 2018)

allright


----------



## gyprock (Apr 22, 2018)

A lot has been written about the life cycle of companies. Typically technocrats start them with innovative ideas and then the suits are brought in to grow them. Once they turn public the rot sets in and the good people leave to start their own businesses and then the cycle starts again. A bit like Groundhog Day.


----------



## fretti (Apr 23, 2018)

Yes, and no, and yes I guess. I wouldn't say it‘s only the fault of marketing people, or business people (like Tim Cook). Nothing wrong with marketing and wanting to sell ones product. 
I think it‘s more of a general theme that companies tend to feel invulnerable when they have a monopoly like stand in the market (though in the sample business I don‘t think that these numbers can be reached due to everybody using multiple companies and not just one).
By that feeling they tend to see other companies as not capable of being a serious rival in the long term. Just look at the car industry and Tesla...imo


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 23, 2018)

blougui said:


> Apple is very about marketing yet has some other companies outdone Apple as far as innovation is concerned ?
> Genuine question.



apple innovation comes more from grabbing all the odd ball things that are going on in silicon valley and put in a consumer friendly way. there where desktops and there where MP3 players and there where smartphones and there where odd faster cable and adapters and mp3 stores and a whole bunch of other hardware and software technologies but all of those where specific or didn't work in a consumer friendly way. there are companies that are way ahead of apple in product innovation but those churn out products for IT guys, specific fields etc or consumer tech but not in a user friendly way. even Microsoft is doing amazing stuff in VR and motion sensor controllers way ahead of most companies. red camera is also doing amazing stuff. but apples' greatness comes from understanding how those amazing new tech will be used by the regular Joe. and market it in a consumer friendly way.


----------



## fretti (Apr 23, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> apple innovation comes more from grabbing all the odd ball things that are going on in silicon valley and put in a consumer friendly way. there where desktops and there where MP3 players and there where smartphones and there where odd faster cable and adapters and mp3 stores and a whole bunch of other hardware and software technologies but all of those where specific or didn't work in a consumer friendly way. there are companies that are way ahead of apple in product innovation but those churn out products for IT guys, specific fields etc or consumer tech but not in a user friendly way. even Microsoft is doing amazing stuff in VR and motion sensor controllers way ahead of most companies. red camera is also doing amazing stuff. but apples' greatness comes from understanding how those amazing new tech will be used by the regular Joe. and market it in a consumer friendly way.


Combining things into a new product is still innovation. Most basic/fundamental research isn‘t done in companies but universities and other institutes. Companies just use that and research/develop farther and put it in useful products.
MP3 wasn‘t developed by MP3 player companies for example. Yet the products that relied on that technology put it in theirs and built around it.
There were operation systems before Windows and OSX. Yes there were touchscreens before the iPhone. But the way these companies used and put different components together were innovating and symbolise a new aproach wich made them unique back in the day...


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 23, 2018)

fretti said:


> Combining things into a new product is still innovation. Most basic/fundamental research isn‘t done in companies but universities and other institutes. Companies just use that and research/develop farther and put it in useful products.
> MP3 wasn‘t developed by MP3 player companies for example. Yet the products that relied on that technology put it in theirs and built around it.
> There were operation systems before Windows and OSX. Yes there were touchscreens before the iPhone. But the way these companies used and put different components together were innovating and symbolise a new aproach wich made them unique back in the day...



yep, agree, thats what I said , thats the innovation from apple.


----------



## fretti (Apr 23, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> yep, agree, thats what I said , thats the innovation from apple.


Then I misunderstood the tone of your post a little. Sounded like that is no innovation to you


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 23, 2018)

fretti said:


> Then I misunderstood the tone of your post a little. Sounded like that is no innovation to you



hmm yes.. it kinda sounded like that 
the details is where its at... back in the day the mp3 and napster and smartphones was a clusterfuck.
so apple was innovative enough to figure out a simple way to connect those dots.

I guess as for sample companies it seems its all about strings. soon it will be Tesla/spacex launching a rocket with a 300 string section inside, recorded in space and then edited in the Norway vault for seeds in the arctic to make sure the samples are as pure as the soul of the dead players to maintain sample integrity.

But, since this is about spitfire and maybe 8dio, towards their defense.. people keep buying their string libraries. and thus, they will keep making them. same as iPhones. apple doesn't care about other stuff, only about the iPhones and the services it can charge with it. thats where they make all their money.

so as a business, what are they suppose to do? I can't seem to see anything else that hasn't been sampled. or at least something that composers will buy and "need".
there are options of course, like strike force recorded more perf players as the velocity strikes harder.
so low velocity is one drums and full velocity was a bunch of drummers playing att he same time.

also, loops phrases is the other option but many composers dislike that.

hybrid libraries is where its at, but thats about recording live things as well. and the processing is where the innovation is at? dunno. money wise I'd say more strings...


----------



## fretti (Apr 23, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> I guess as for sample companies it seems its all about strings. soon it will be Tesla/spacex launching a rocket with a 300 string section inside, recorded in space and then edited in the Norway vault for seeds in the arctic to make sure the samples are as pure as the soul of the dead players to maintain sample integrity.



Maybe Brass playing in a submarine, or the "thirty seconds to mars" artist library with a band sampled on mars



gsilbers said:


> hmm yes.. it kinda sounded like that
> the details is where its at... back in the day the mp3 and napster and smartphones was a clusterfuck.
> so apple was innovative enough to figure out a simple way to connect those dots.
> 
> ...


Yes, every articulation with every mic position and playing style seems to be sampled. Imo the only real "innovations" are in the "size"/number of samples regarding velocity etc. and the scripting to enhance realism. But other then that I don't know how sampling companies could advance/boost realism, I think that is more on hardware and possibilities nowadays (5D touch, apple pencil controlling the bow of strings) etc...
Maybe Spitfire will invest in complementary Hardware now that they have their own sampler


----------



## tonaliszt (Apr 23, 2018)




----------



## Quasar (Apr 23, 2018)

I think the broad point is true, is applicable to a great many areas of life, and also inevitable. What happens in the world intellectually, artistically, spiritually, culturally is always changing & moving, and the movement is often faster than whatever mass perception surrounds it. So by the time something becomes a "thing", it may already be yesterday's news...

...This is one reason why I like to, when I have time, spend some energy looking around for small, "indie" content developers who no one has ever heard of. Once in a while you can find a true diamond for the price of a lump of coal because the hype hasn't gotten there yet.


----------



## MaxOctane (Apr 23, 2018)

Innovation in this field will stall with the current generation of sampler+DAW architectures, which have several fundamental limitations. 

E.g., no DAW plugin system (AFAIK) supports _lookahead_, to allow the plugin engine to make a decision based on what's going to happen over the upcoming time window (or, if AU/VST supports this, no DAW seems to take advantage of it). As a result, we have to deal with the lame legato-delay issues (CSS, etc). It's not hard to imagine a sample engine that sounds one way when recording, but during playback gives you perfect legatos, because it knows the future before selecting samples and transitions.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 23, 2018)

I haven't seen any sample developer suffer for ever-increasing marketing efforts and focus. The biggest players have really only gotten bigger. There is nothing but success to show for that approach.


----------



## The Darris (Apr 23, 2018)

zircon_st said:


> I haven't seen any sample developer suffer for ever-increasing marketing efforts and focus. The biggest players have really only gotten bigger. There is nothing but success to show for that approach.


Yeah, I have to agree with this. Sure, maybe the product quality or standards and innovations that we are used to as the end user seems less than it used to be, that's irrelevant at this point because we will constantly have new generations of users flooding the market, looking for tools to help them get the job done. 

Personally, I think complaining about marketing strategies of companies and questioning their intentions is pointless. This forum, for example, has been running this narrative and almost a "hive mind" of reactions. The second a company promotes their product, a good portion of the first page of posts are members questioning the marketing tactics of the company. There is less patience from the consumer then there used to be simply because the user has a lot of a "self" expectations of what the library in question 'should' be versus what it was actually designed to be. I've been in the media side of this industry long enough to see, by and large, that the developers are just trying to run a company and they truly are trying to produce quality libraries for their customers. Sure, there are a few outliers who are trying to make that quick buck but you can tell who they are very quickly if you pay attention. 

At the end of the day, if you truly aren't happy with what the industry is developing then start your own venture. Collaborate, innovate, and push the industry is a new direction. That's how every single developer I've met and have reviewed got started. It usually hasn't been about demand for the customer but usually what the developer's needs were. After that, they opened their findings to the commercial world and the rest is history. Companies like Spitfire Audio (which seems to be referenced a lot in this thread and others) definitely has their "style" or "voice" in their products. One can argue that a number of their libraries are similar but users of said products could also argue that they aren't. It's all about how YOU, the user, decide to use those sounds in your work. Don't invest into the "hype" invest into yourself and buy the products you think will help you grow your sound. If you can't afford it, make your own.

Best,

C


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 23, 2018)

zircon_st said:


> The biggest players have really only gotten bigger. There is nothing but success to show for that approach.



I disagree but I'd rather not talk about specific companies here is possible, I'm not trying to make this a war between anyone. If we can talk about the logic behind what I was saying that would be preferable.

I do personally think we have had companies who at one time were the standard...but then slowly started putting more effort into selling libraries rather than coming up with new ideas. Putting out new libraries before fixing old ones. Making decisions which inconvenience the user in order to make more money. And as the video I linked suggests, if you want to remain relevant you need to have the people who create making the decisions. Think over time how companies who were the most important in our industry started getting 'same old' or 'lazy' with their new products....but you always knew that a new one was coming. Think of commercial announcement threads you have seen from companies where all the comments are about other libraries the users are disappointed or annoyed with. We already know that these companies CAN create innovative and creative products, because thats why that company is on the radar at all, but the more successful I have seen them get the more 'run of the mill' libraries they end up making.

Again this is just how I have seen it go. Look through the forum, you will be able to see which developers coming up are already competing up against 'the big guys' because they are innovating. And thats my hope, that the companies we are seeing become the standard, use that position of power to innovate on an even bigger scale....innovate on the products, not on how you plan to sell them to me. If its an amazing product I will buy it. you don't need to focus on forcing it into my lap.



The Darris said:


> It's all about how YOU, the user, decide to use those sounds in your work. Don't invest into the "hype" invest into yourself and buy the products you think will help you grow your sound. If you can't afford it, make your own.



I think you miss my point somewhat, I am more just saying I wish that the companies who are getting bigger keep the focus on products, not on how to show me them. And lets be honest here, you can think of a few examples of companies who started putting out average libraries once they started getting bigger. You can think of a few times you though "Wow _another_ mailing list email about that"...usually its not from the smaller guy is it. Or a time a company has made a very run of the mill library and you cant get away from the adverts for it. 

I'm not telling them they can't run their business how they want, just that the logic behind putting salesmen in charge over creators you will eventually have a less creative outcome, as decisions will be made leaning more towards how best to sell it rather than 'whats the best library we can make'

-DJ


----------



## Phillip (Apr 23, 2018)

"At the end of the day, if you truly aren't happy with what the industry is developing then start your own venture. "
If you order a steak in a restaurant and you don't like it, do you go and grow your own cow?


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 23, 2018)

I agree in principle that success can lead to some level of complacency, and an over-emphasis on marketing is distasteful to some % of the market (I'd count myself among them)... _but_... really, I would argue that intense marketing is what made some of these outfits so enormous to begin with. The active participants on VI probably represent <1% of the total market for virtual instruments so even if everyone here was pushing back against the heavy style of marketing, it wouldn't matter.


----------



## The Darris (Apr 23, 2018)

Daniel James said:


> I think you miss my point somewhat, I am more just saying I wish that the companies who are getting bigger keep the focus on products, not on how to show me them. And lets be honest here, you can think of a few examples of companies who started putting out average libraries once they started getting bigger. You can think of a few times you though "Wow _another_ mailing list email about that"...usually its not from the smaller guy is it. Or a time a company has made a very run of the mill library and you cant get away from the adverts for it.
> 
> I'm not telling them they can't run their business how they want, just that the logic behind putting salesmen in charge over creators you will eventually have a less creative outcome, as decisions will be made leaning more towards how best to sell it rather than 'whats the best library we can make'



Well, yes and no. I can totally point out the marketing side of things and agree with you there but also, in the case of the libraries I've bought and reviewed, I never really thought the output of those developers seemed mediocre. Let me clarify what I mean. There are a few "big" name developers putting out incredibly high end products. Then you have mid level and then lower level. Within those tiers, you can quantify a quality if you like but that will seriously be subjective. I can point out one developer and claim their samples are poorly programmed and edited and overly bloated and be right but a majority of users will disagree and swear by it. Meanwhile, I can point to a different developer and say their libraries are very well recorded, edited, and programmed and other point out where I'm wrong. It's on based on user experience and how we use the tools. You and I program midi different thus our output and style of writing is completely different. The same goes for developer and how they create.

Now, do developers tend to remake the same library and not innovate? In some cases, sure. One could argue that. However, a lot of those similar libraries are also very different and that becomes apparent when you actually use them side by side. It's easy to call out developers that utilize the same engine and recording techniques over and over as not caring about the product and end user but the quality and "focus," as you say, seems to be very defined from product to product. (I'm just making a general observation here) In the end, I think the proof is in the pudding. Certainly you have a particular style and want to buy and use tools that will help you achieve that. It's very easy to call attention to libraries that don't achieve that by saying the developer is not keeping the focus on the products and then point to their marketing strategies as the culprit. Likewise, you can turn around and say another library is amazing and innovative and that the developers really care about their product when it meets your expectations. We are all guilty of this. You, Me, and everyone else. 

At the end of the day, you can buy into the hype or just ignore it and learn how to research before you buy. The developers who have these big marketing campaigns are absolutely trying to sell products but if you pay attention, you can see that they are also trying to build a community of users and create an experience that will help their users achieve their end goals. Some communities aren't for everyone but in my experience and I think you might agree, it's good to be apart of all the communities. You have a better chance of finding what you need to get the job done right. 

As always, cheers,

Chris


----------



## Pontus Rufelt (Apr 23, 2018)

It's very fair to say that we've seen a clear shift towards heavier marketing among many sample library companies that traditionally focused on the needs of professional composers. I think this clear shift towards heavier marketing represents an increasing commodification of sample libraries. What used to be highly specialized tools, made by companies looking to innovate at every turn, are now products we get an "amazing deal" on every week. 

Commodification isn't an inherently bad thing. Prices have come down and music creation in general is now widely available, at a very low cost, to essentially anyone with a computer.

However, with this commodification you do put an emphasis on consumer over professional and that is quite the detriment in the long run if you ask me. 

Apple itself is an excellent example of a company that started putting consumer products before everything else and lost a huge swath of professionals in the process. It's pretty telling, how important the professional market is, when Apple later held a press event essentially apologizing to professionals and promising to innovate more for the pro market (I'm intrigued to see what they come up with for the 2019 Mac Pro).

Many things are still quite unrealized when it comes to sample libraries and I see very few companies pushing the envelope. We're mostly getting new versions of standard articulations, at least in the orchestral realm. I'd personally say that plenty of orchestral sample libraries still even leave a lot to desire in terms of legato, which I'd consider a standard articulation. I'll never complain about having more options and more colors in my palette. But there are a great deal of things that could be done in sampling that would make the work of composers faster, easier and more convincing. 

In the orchestral realm I think of things like great RR legato for backing harmony. In any score you'll see an enormous amount of arpeggiating harmony, yet we have few options to tackle this. We have a gazillion libraries for soaring melody lines, but very few to do something as basic as backing harmony without a machine gun effect. Now, I'm not saying it can't be done currently, but my point being that there's a lot of room for improvement. 

It's costly to do test sessions and experiment with different approaches to capturing orchestral techniques and articulations. But if you, as a company, want to stay relevant in 10 years, you do need to tend to the requests and desires of the most demanding craftsmen. Otherwise you'll most likely be stuck in a race to the bottom, fighting an endless sales war with the "standard" offerings. 

It's often the costly innovations that later become standards and find their way into more consumer-oriented products as well. 

In the end I think it's also about what kind of company the individuals running it want it to be. If it's about a more consistent quick buck, then a "consumer" approach makes a lot of sense. 

However, I hope that developers are more adventurous and curious than that and that they'll see the long-term benefits of innovation. And they also shouldn't underestimate how much professionals are willing to pay for innovation that makes their job faster, more convinving and more fun. I know I'd pay a pretty penny for something that made my jaw drop.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 24, 2018)

Our industry is much smaller than many. I have interacted personally with many developers over time. I've been an Apple user since '89 and I've never had a chance to interact with the Woz, Jony Ive, Steve (R.I.P)

From that aspect, I think our business is a bit more personal and intimate. Also, a lot of music creators are iconoclasts. Bombastic marketing doesn't generally appeal to iconoclasts.


----------



## blougui (Apr 24, 2018)

Very intereting posts from Zircon and Pontus, me think.

I find it important to be reminded that VI.c is a fragment of the market, though I believe it’s becoming more and more hobbyist-ic that in its inception.

One thing to be aware of is bigger companies need more cash flow for the fixed expenses (for lack of a better word as english is not my native language): some players here have 40+ employees to care for. In French we have a word for getting immediate cash by issuing more products just to pay the bills and wages, and it’s cavalry. Fixing products is not as urgent as getting enough money to stay afloat. So it’s not only a question of marketing dep taking the lead. I’m sure innovation wouldn’t be sufficient when passed a certain critical size.

But 1st : what is what we call innovation in our maket ? Could be different for each of us. DJ youbdon’t want to name brands but it’s difficult to adress your interesting question by not mentionning what innovation wére talking about. A new sample player is an innovation or not ? A new kind/family of instruments ?
A new VSTi built from the ground up ? Are you just talking about the proportion between another strings offer and one of the aforementioned innovation ?

Bigger players tend to output more products than small ones. Therefore I would find it unsurprising that in this amount of products those that innovate are a minority. Just a proportion thing rather than a « it’s marketing dep taking the lead » issue.

I’m not convinced I’m right, here, just saying for the fun if the « conversation »


And let’s not forget dev are very platform dependent (Kontakt, Falcon mostly).


----------



## fretti (Apr 24, 2018)

blougui said:


> One thing to be aware of is bigger companies need more cash flow for the fixed expenses (for lack of a better word as english is not my native language): some players here have 40+ employees to care for. In French we have a word for getting immediate cash by issuing more products just to pay the bills and wages, and it’s cavalry. Fixing products is not as urgent as getting enough money to stay afloat. So it’s not only a question of marketing dep taking the lead. I’m sure innovation wouldn’t be sufficient when passed a certain critical size.


Well they need income in general to pay for all expenses (fixed and variable). Cash flow is the number indicating liquidity of a company (roughly).


It isn't only the case that companies produce products, become market leaders and then stop producing anything but rely on the products they have and investing in their marketing there. That wouldn't make sense. Just look at Cinesamples, many people have their products, for them investing heavily in marketing would be fatal as there aren't that much people left to buy them.
When companies like Spitfire or Orchestral Tools release a new product, of course it makes sense for them to invest in marketing. Without marketing many people wouldn't even know that there is a new product.
I think it is a widely miss conception that marketing is all bad and stops from innovation. Without money companies can't invest in innovation, can't keep up their work etc.....
Marketing is one of the main "engines" of todays economy.
The only different thing with Samples is, that you can buy whatever you want. It's not one company/product and that was it. We are able to buy from OT, Spitfire, 8Dio, Cinesamples, EW, VSL and so on. So blaming it on marketing and business people that companies tend to get "lazy" and don't innovate anymore, is in my eyes unfair and untrue.


----------



## blougui (Apr 24, 2018)

Thanx for clarifying my post, fretty.
What I wanted to say about income and the notion of cavalry is the concept that in some extrem cases you need to output new products on a rush to get a fresh amount of cash, as consumers tend to purchase new products or that the previous ones have reached their target. My explanation might not be as relevant for an immaterial product such as sample lib than books, especially considering sample companies tend to distribute their products themselves. In the book commercial cycle, bookstores pay their books to distributors (and publishers) ahead of selling them, hence the idea for the publishers to produce a lot of them even if the books won’t be sold to the end clients.

A close friend of mine is head of marketing in an important international company. Believe me, he ´s not the last to say that part of the huge amount of money spent would be better spent elsewhere and is a more often than not a considerable waste. Sure, it’s an opinion and nothing more. There’s also the idea, shared by some, that advertising is a parasite monster, detrimental to the economy and even moreso to the end user-consumer. At 50, I’m beginning to think it’s true, at least partially. 

It is almost an ethical issue.

We all remember some recent marketing stunts. Some was deceptive and on the verge to morally despicable - sure, it’s not important in the end, wére talking about sample libraries.


----------



## fretti (Apr 24, 2018)

blougui said:


> Thanx for clarifying my post, fretty.
> What I wanted to say about income and the notion of cavalry is the concept that in some extrem cases you need to output new products on a rush to get a fresh amount of cash, as consumers tend to purchase new products or that the previous ones have reached their target. My explanation might not be as relevant for an immaterial product such as sample lib than books, especially considering sample companies tend to distribute their products themselves. In the book commercial cycle, bookstores pay their books to distributors (and publishers) ahead of selling them, hence the idea for the publishers to produce a lot of them even if the books won’t be sold to the end clients.
> 
> A close friend of mine is head of marketing in an important international company. Believe me, he ´s not the last to say that part of the huge amount of money spent would be better spent elsewhere and is a more often than not a considerable waste. Sure, it’s an opinion and nothing more. There’s also the idea, shared by some, that advertising is a parasite monster, detrimental to the economy and even moreso to the end user-consumer. At 50, I’m beginning to think it’s true, at least partially.
> ...


No problem, though only the first part of my post was meant to be for your statement. The rest was just a general statement wich I observe in society. That‘s why I only quoted your cash flow part 
Should have done two probably


----------



## blougui (Apr 24, 2018)

One more thing, I don't think people on VIC get pissed off by a sample company because of endless marketing but in the 1st hand because the said company didn’t adress flaws and bugs.


----------



## blougui (Apr 24, 2018)

fretti said:


> No problem, though only the first part of my post was meant to be for your statement. The rest was just a general statement wich I observe in society. That‘s why I only quoted your cash flow part
> Should have done two probably


No it’s all good, I got it  And it allowed me to probably word my ideas a bit clearer - or not !


----------



## Pontus Rufelt (Apr 24, 2018)

blougui said:


> But 1st : what is what we call innovation in our maket ? Could be different for each of us.



Very good point! Innovation can take many forms and I think Hans Zimmer Strings makes a good case study for this. In some ways HZS was groundbreaking, in others it was subpar. The number of players, the room, articulations captured and the vast array of mic positions (in particular if you ask me), together provided something that was *sonically *unique and innovative for the sample library market. 

The legato on the other hand, was some of the worst legato I've used in years. Part of me wonders why they even included it. So, innovation can indeed take many forms. 

If I was to elaborate on what innovation I feel we're missing at the moment, I'd say that we have no shortage of sonic innovation. Hans Zimmer Strings, 8dio's 66 basses, Majestica, Albion Tundra, Novo Strings, I think I could make this list endless. There's a multitude of sonically innovative libraries. And I do treasure these. 

What we're missing is innovation in capturing things that solve very specific and essential musical situations and challenges. Like the aformentioned RR Legato for arpeggiating backing harmony or why not performance sourced ostinato transitions (capturing the in-between of short note ostinato passages at different intervals and tempos)? Decent legato is still hard to find, in my opinion, with a few exceptions like CSS, CSSS and Jaeger. Playability could also be vastly improved and some are innovating in that area, Performance Samples and Musical Sampling come to mind. That being said I have beta tested for them and Audio Imperia, so I am a bit biased. But I think they are objectively innovative and more playable libraries than most of the others I own. Although they have plenty to improve as well.

Remember when Orchestral String Runs came out? or Hollywood Strings for that matter? Playable runs was not something that had been successfully captured for a commercial sample libraries before, and to me that was a big step forward and something that excited me. Hollywood Strings also pushed the bar with its legato at the time. Adventure/trailer strings and brass also pushed the bar in terms of playability. Passages you'd have to layer three or four patches of staccatos and marcatos to pull off, you could now accomplish with one patch. That's a big deal to me. 

It is these aspects of innovation that are sorely missing right now, probably because they tend to be the most expensive problems to solve and require many test sessions and experiments to successfully capture. But this kind of experimentation is what I'd like to se a whole lot more of. 

Considering the number of big and financially successful sample library companies around these days, I thought we'd maybe see more of this innovation - yet we seem to see less of it. Hopefully that changes.


----------



## pulsedownloader (Apr 25, 2018)

I guess its also worth asking, how much more innovation can be made in the industry? It seems we've now overcome most of the technical limitations of creating software, so the only real limitation nowadays is the developer's creativity in coming up with new ideas. But then, I can't think of anything that I'd like to see that hasn't already been done already (bar something that's been done already with one small thing differently done to it)


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Apr 25, 2018)

The more choice there is, the more marketing you’ll get. It’s just part of a “perfect competition” market place. 

The end products in most cases are homogenous. 

Company x and company y both record a string library. They use similar players in a similar recording environment with similar equipment, playing similar articulations and sell at a similar price. 

They have to do something to get the customer to pick one over the other. 

Marketing.


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Apr 25, 2018)

Phillip said:


> "At the end of the day, if you truly aren't happy with what the industry is developing then start your own venture. "
> If you order a steak in a restaurant and you don't like it, do you go and grow your own cow?



He didn’t say a single producer, but the industry in general. 

And yes, many people would open their own restaurant if they thought the slelection wasn’t up to their standard and had an entrepreneurial spirit.


----------



## fretti (Apr 25, 2018)

Puzzlefactory said:


> He didn’t say a single producer, but the industry in general.
> 
> And yes, many people would open their own restaurant if they thought the slelection wasn’t up to their standard and had an entrepreneurial spirit.


One can always cook at home


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Apr 25, 2018)

fretti said:


> One can always cook at home



Haha yes well I was trying to stretch the dubious analogy to fit the scenario appropriately. 

I don’t think recording your own sample library is akin to frying a steak at home...


----------



## fretti (Apr 25, 2018)

Puzzlefactory said:


> Haha yes well I was trying to stretch the dubious analogy to fit the scenario appropriately.
> 
> I don’t think recording your own sample library is akin to frying a steak at home...


Was actually quite a good comparison I think, because in the end everybody can sample instruments (or cook). But I am no cellist etc. So it will never sound like a professional playing it. So will my pizza never taste like the ones in Naples where one makes them for the last 40 years and has experience doing it


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Apr 25, 2018)

I don’t think it was a good comparison at all.

Being unhappy with a single steak from a single restaurant and then deciding to raise your own cattle is not analogous with being dissatisfied with the entire sample libary industry and making your own sample library.

However, if you’ve tried every steak in every restaurant and are unhappy and think you can do better, then starting your own restaraunt exploring the niche in the market is analogous to starting your own sample library company.

Isn’t that kind of how Spitfire got started in the first place...?


----------



## fretti (Apr 25, 2018)

Puzzlefactory said:


> I don’t think it was a good comparison at all.
> 
> Being unhappy with a single steak from a single restaurant and then deciding to raise your own cattle is not analogous with being dissatisfied with the entire sample libary industry and making your own sample library.
> 
> ...


I‘d say that is how nearly every company is founded. I have tons of ideas of whom and where to record samples, but not the capital, not the expertise nor the need of doing that my own because I am no pro. And because I am no pro but an economy student I don‘t think that my sample library would be revolutionary in any way because I don‘t know what professionals want to see.

I mean that’s why Daniel started Hybrid Two right? So it‘s actually all the more interesting how he sees that „problem“ in this business.


----------



## Pontus Rufelt (Apr 25, 2018)

pulsedownloader said:


> I guess its also worth asking, how much more innovation can be made in the industry? It seems we've now overcome most of the technical limitations of creating software, so the only real limitation nowadays is the developer's creativity in coming up with new ideas. But then, I can't think of anything that I'd like to see that hasn't already been done already (bar something that's been done already with one small thing differently done to it)



I’ve mentioned a couple of things in my previous post that either leave much to be desired or haven’t been fully realized. There are a great deal of things left to be accomplished. 



Puzzlefactory said:


> The more choice there is, the more marketing you’ll get. It’s just part of a “perfect competition” market place.
> 
> The end products in most cases are homogenous.
> 
> ...



I don’t think this thread was a complaint about the quantity of marketing, but rather how the heavy marketing focus seems to come at the expense of innovation.


----------



## Replicant (Apr 25, 2018)

Man, you've really gotta let this thing with Spitfire go.

Yeah, plenty of companies with tons of money from once great products start just pumping out crap, marketing the hell out of it, and people still eat it up. Look at every successful rock band ever. Can anyone remember an Iron Maiden song from the last 20 years? No, but they still bought or at least pirated the new album anyway and shelled out obscene amounts of money to watch X band of geezers put on a subpar performance because brand name.

But that's their problem.

Anyone can google, go on YouTube, or forums like this and listen to tons of product demos and videos from even the most obscure devs and decided whether or not they want to buy it.

I just think that what you're raising in this thread is truly a non-issue. The innovation is still out there, great products are still there, you can ignore the ads from companies you don't like, and so on.


----------



## Pontus Rufelt (Apr 25, 2018)

Replicant said:


> Man, you've really gotta let this thing with Spitfire go.
> 
> Yeah, plenty of companies with tons of money from once great products start just pumping out crap, marketing the hell out of it, and people still eat it up. Look at every successful rock band ever. Can anyone remember an Iron Maiden song from the last 20 years? No, but they still bought or at least pirated the new album anyway and shelled out obscene amounts of money to watch X band of geezers put on a subpar performance because brand name.
> 
> ...



I think DJ raises a legitimate general issue that’s in no way specific to Spitfire Audio. He didn’t even mention them.


----------



## Replicant (Apr 25, 2018)

Pontus Rufelt said:


> I think DJ raises a legitimate general issue that’s in no way specific to Spitfire Audio. He didn’t even mention them.



There is no way I can believe this thread has nothing to do with that fiasco; especially since the marketing of the product based on a name was essentially the whole debate. It's like saying Mike Patti couldn't have been talking about Spitfire because he totally didn't name them.

It's the text equivalent of being like:







But I fail to see how it's a legitimate issue.

Again, the free market. If they're making crap...stop buying it.


----------



## Pontus Rufelt (Apr 25, 2018)

Replicant said:


> There is no way I can believe this thread has nothing to do with that fiasco; especially since the marketing of the product based on a name was essentially the whole debate. It's like saying Mike Patti couldn't have been talking about Spitfire because he totally didn't name them.
> 
> It's the text equivalent of being like:
> 
> ...



This thread could just as much be about Orchestral Tools or East West. Again, DJ never mentioned Spitfire. He pointed out a general issue that when companies get big they tend to shift gears and focus on marketing at the expense of innovation. Very legitimate concern that I certainly share.


----------



## Replicant (Apr 25, 2018)

Pontus Rufelt said:


> This thread could just as much be about Orchestral Tools or East West. Again, DJ never mentioned Spitfire. He pointed out a general issue that when companies get big they tend to shift gears and focus on marketing at the expense of innovation. Very legitimate concern that I certainly share.



I'm sure they have nothing to do with it.






Again, how is this a legitimate concern?

If they shift gears and focus on marketing at the expense of innovation, that's only good for the competitors who will do the opposite.

I don't care how much marketing McDonald's does. Their food is shit and I'm not eating it, so if I eat at fast food places, it will not be McDonald's.

In my city, the manager at Carl's Jr. was filmed mixing BBQ sauce with his bare hands and pretty much everyone stopped going there until they at least got new management; didn't matter how many sexy girls eating cheeseburgers Carl's Jr. put on TV.


----------



## Pontus Rufelt (Apr 25, 2018)

Replicant said:


> I'm sure they have nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Craftsmen should always be concerned about innovation and push for more of it. Big companies are best positioned to invest in innovation.


----------



## Replicant (Apr 25, 2018)

Pontus Rufelt said:


> Craftsmen should always be concerned about innovation and push for more of it. Big companies are best positioned to invest in innovation.



Whatever moral compass any of us think big companies "should" follow is irrelevant. They do what they want and the only way to "fight" it, is with your wallet.


----------



## Pontus Rufelt (Apr 25, 2018)

Replicant said:


> Whatever moral compass any of us think big companies "should" follow is irrelevant. They do what they want and the only way to "fight" it, is with your wallet.



This thread is a discussion about how marketing can come at the expense of innovation at large companies. You say that that discussion is irrelevant, so why are you participating?


----------



## Replicant (Apr 25, 2018)

Pontus Rufelt said:


> This thread is a discussion about how marketing can come at the expense of innovation at large companies. You say that that discussion is irrelevant, so why are you participating?



Because I felt like it, and I was offering a different perspective.


----------



## Pontus Rufelt (Apr 25, 2018)

Replicant said:


> Because I felt like it, and I was offering a different perspective.



Chiming in in a discussion to say that the discussion is irrelevant. I fail to see the perspective you’re offering.


----------



## Replicant (Apr 25, 2018)

Pontus Rufelt said:


> Chiming in in a discussion to say that the discussion is irrelevant. I fail to see the perspective you’re offering.



It's very simple:

The free market. Don't like it — don't buy it.


----------



## blougui (Apr 25, 2018)

Eastwest and SA but not OT : no sales (well, mostly) not much marketing compared to the 2 above. 8Dio comes to mind.

But may be more to the point, at the risk of repeating myself : what is innovation.

And when you produce one product every 3 years (Audiobro), you have more chance to be considered innovative than when you launch 15 products in the same time with one of them being innovative. Not a question of marketing but of proportion.

Just some ideas to add to the debate, I’m not hard bent on them


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 25, 2018)

fretti said:


> Daniel started Hybrid Two right?



Actually I started it because people wanted to buy my custom samples xD



Pontus Rufelt said:


> I don’t think this thread was a complaint about the quantity of marketing, but rather how the heavy marketing focus seems to come at the expense of innovation.



This. You have a budget, you either spend it on creating products or selling them. If you have creators in charge the budget will tend to lean towards innovation. With sales people in charge it tends leans towards selling. You can do both of course. But some newer companies will be all in on innovation, and you have to compete with that. Have a salesman in charge long enough and those who are all about innovation will eventually make your products irrelevant and outdated. I can think of a few companies here in VI already who make amazingly innovative products but they don't market nearly as much as some of the bigger companies, you can see the focus on the product.



Replicant said:


> Man, you've really gotta let this thing with Spitfire go.



I'm not talking about specific companies. There are plenty of examples of my point, that have happened over the past 10 years that I have been in this industry.



Replicant said:


> I just think that what you're raising in this thread is truly a non-issue. The innovation is still out there, great products are still there, you can ignore the ads from companies you don't like, and so on.



I totally disagree. Its not about ignoring ads. Its the people making those ads dedicating more time and thought into those than the thing they are selling. Some libraries these days feel like checklists rather than any real attempt to improve. Think of companies that put out library after library of essentially the same thing, but the marketing for each one gets more and more intricate. When was the last time you remember those big guys developing instead a new concept, or an improved system for playability like a better legato or a new creative way to achieve an end goal? ....what you actually see is more of the same but being



Replicant said:


> There is no way I can believe this thread has nothing to do with that fiasco



I said the same thing in the thread on Mikes tweet. Conversations like this are always inspired by current events. Of course Spitfire is related in this, as they are a big player in our industry, but its not about them specifically. There are many companies over the past 10 years who I feel fit my point. If you keep trying to make it about Spitfire you will miss the points I am making. 



Replicant said:


> But I fail to see how it's a legitimate issue.



It is to me because I value innovation over stagnation. Companies can and will operate however the fuck they like. But even if begrudgingly my points are heard by those who have the power to change the course of their companies, and they decide to shift, even in a minimal way, away from marketing and more towards innovation then this conversation is 100% worth having. As it will push the competition to try harder, it will create better products and we will move into a new era of innovation and creativity. I tend not to have these debates out of 'spite' like it seems you are suggesting. Discussions and debates are all about putting ideas and thoughts out there and for them to be challenged in the hope it can drive things in a positive direction. 

To me less innovative products sold on a bigger scale or worse for our industry than innovation and creativity sold at a lower scale.



Pontus Rufelt said:


> This thread could just as much be about Orchestral Tools or East West.



Absolutely it can, one company who was once an industry standard and one who are slowly emerging as one. Great examples for the point. OT so far to me have leaned more towards innovation than marketing but as their relevance increases as will the desire to sell more. That time/money has to come from somewhere, and usually at the expense of something else. Something I hope they can resist. Which is why we are having this discussion.



Replicant said:


> The free market. Don't like it — don't buy it.



There are quite a few examples of companies who have lost my business over the years and usually it has more to do with the quality of their products diminishing. Which is exactly my point. I LOVED their libraries when they were innovating. They would push the industry forward. And I want them too keep creating amazing things in the future. Again thats the reason for this thread. To have the discussion. Just saying it isnt a point worth making doesn't help in either direction. You say this conversation isn't worth having because its a free market and id I don't want it don't buy it.....and thats the whole point of the topic. I want them to keep making things I want to buy. I WANT them to succeed, I WANT the libraries to be amazing.

-DJ


----------



## ism (Apr 25, 2018)

If I think of, maybe 6 of the last 7 libraries I've bought, some coming with expensive marketing campaigns and some with only a handful of demos, I'm at the very least happy with their innovation, and sometime overjoyed. 


It might be worthwhile distinguishing between two type of innovation

"vertical innovation" - deeper sampling, better legato scripts, smarter mic positions etc

and 

"horizontal innovation" - new articulations, new artistic visions, new dynamics etc


Instruments like Joshua Bell and Bohemian cello, the Fluffy Clarinet are breathtaking vertical innovations - amazing advances in ever deeper sampling and scripting. 


Bu then libraries like Tundra, LCO, Tidal Orchestra, Olafur chamber Evo - and I really could go on - aren't advertised as massive innovations in scripting and deep sampling, but rather they open up new artistic spaces, and I'm equally in awe of these innovations, just in a different way. 


Then you have things like Light and Sound Chamber strings which is a bit of both. Not mind blowing advances in either vertical or horizontal innovation, but enough of each that when you take the library as a whole I think you have to see it as significant innovation. Especially when you consider the price point at which they're able to deliver, which itself is a kind of innovation at the level of the business model.

Arguably, this "horizontal" innovation is harder to communicate. For instance the selling point of the Joshua Bell is basically: "holy crap this is does an amazing job at sounding like a real violin", and in this sense practically sells itself. But at the other end of the spectrum, I spent nearly a year trying to figure out just what LCO was about, and was grateful for all the effort that lots of marketers and musicians and composers put into communicating that this was truly something new. (And the discussions on vi-c were enormously helpful in figuring this out, as lots of people beside myself tried to figure out what was so 'game changing' about it). 

Actually, make that 9 out of the last 10 libraries I've bought I'm happy with. The one that didn't deliver wan't actually a bad library exactly, its just that it was a sublimely beautiful bit of marketing that lacked fidelity to the actual experience of working with the library. And I've learned to never trust marketing from that company.

And this is the real question - not whether intensified marketing is bad, but whether it remains faithfully in representing the library. Personally, I'd like to see front line innovators like Embertone and Vir Harmonic invest a little more in marketing - assuming it's the right kind of marketing. But innovations like LCO, Tundra, and probably things like NOVO as well, are probably always going to need more marketing that, say, a traditional woodwind library. In that, we all more or less know what a woodwind library is supposed to do, and from there it's a relatively simple question of how well it actually does that. But what exactly is LCO or Tundra *supposed* to do? 

There are companies whose marketing would never trust. But does anyone really think that solid companies like VSL, OT and Spitfire are over-marketing? If anything, I could have used more marketing resources from OT on their recent first chairs to figure out what exactly the library was about. 

(I've written elsewhere about just how complex (and interesting) I think the semiotics of HZS are, so maybe can we treat this library as a special case, worthy of extensive debate, but please, not on this thread).

When I consider what I have in my palette now, compared to what I could have got with a similar investment 2 or 3 years ago, it feels like we're living in a golden age of sample library innovation. 

And for any of the companies mentioned here, I can't wait to see what they do next.


----------



## ism (Apr 25, 2018)

I'll add that I'd love to be proven wrong - for this would mean that there's potential for even more innovation. Which would be great!


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 25, 2018)

ism said:


> If I think of, maybe 6 of the last 7 libraries I've bought, some coming with expensive marketing campaigns and some with only a handful of demos, I'm at the very least happy with their innovation, and sometime overjoyed.
> 
> 
> It might be worthwhile distinguishing between two type of innovation
> ...



Totally agree with most of this for sure. Of course there are big companies still innovating while marketing. I am pointing out that a degree of 'complacency' seems to slowly filter into decisions. For example I think about which companies I use and am excited to buy from today, then I think about how that compares to 3 years ago, 5 years ago and 10 years ago. Think about those that were amazing back then, but these days every time you see something 'new' you are like...oh right, that again.

And again a lot of that comes from the leadership.

If you have salesmen in charge they will breed the best and fastest horses that people are clamouring for because it will make the most money....then an innovator comes along and creates a car.

Obviously not all releases will be as significant as from horse to car....but if your leaders are so wrapped up in trying to get a better horse they wouldn't even have a starting point from which to dream up a car. If your leaders are more focused on innovation, they will think 'whats better than a horse but will serve the same goal' thus making it more likely to create the concept of a car at all.

-DJ


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Apr 26, 2018)

The only way to know how a budget is divided is if you work for the company(s).

This thread is pure speculation at best.

At the end of the day, no project is going to get greenlighted without a USP. A large marketing budget is not a replacement for a USP and is a bad long term business strategy.

Also you can’t compare smaller companies like sample library producers to companies like Apple. Companies that are floated on the stock market have whole different business strategy and rely on public image to directly affect their share prices.


----------



## fretti (Apr 26, 2018)

Daniel James said:


> Actually I started it because people wanted to buy my custom samples xD


Then my fault. Didn't know that.

To the general discussion:
I think when discussion this "issue" we should see the different "faces" of marketing, as it isn't only commercials and shouting out on some forums that you have a new product.
I'm sorry to quote Wikipedia here, but it is the first site in english I came across without having to dig google for a longer time:
"Marketing is used to create, keep and satisfy the customer. With the customer as the focus of its activities, it can be concluded that Marketing is one of the premier components of Business Management - the other being Innovation."

Might be an interesting read for people not involved with this topic to much:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing

Also it might help to express where one thinks the problems lay, when investing more into marketing and to differentiate between promoting and marketing as a whole. Because it doesn't necessarily prevent companies from investing in other fields or keeps them from getting/staying innovative.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 26, 2018)

Puzzlefactory said:


> The only way to know how a budget is divided is if you work for the company(s).
> 
> This thread is pure speculation at best.
> 
> ...



To a degree its speculation. We may not have insider knowledge but we as customers can tell when we are being marketed to more and we can also judge the quality of the products being released. And of course the correlation of those two elements doesn't always equal causation BUT It's known to happen in other industries (as seen in the video) and it's worth talking about as a general point.

And again I'm not saying you can't do both innovation and marketing. Just that as Steve Jobs is saying in that video, if you put a salesman in charge the decisions will likely slowly start to become more about selling than creating. And IF that happens you will eventually lose relevance. I'm having this discussion because I _want_ the companies in our industry to _keep_ innovating. And to me there are signs that the shift has started for some companies.

-DJ


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 26, 2018)

not sure if it really matters or care that much but i do see it very specific to spitfire as they seem to keep doig strings stuff and very similar to each other. 8dio on the other hand keep churningout random products with all degrees of innovation and at the same time now seem to be copying spitfires marketing things like having a british guy/woman do the walkthroughs, have a video blog like hansons and so on.
heaviocity seems to be still be very innovative on their producrts all though their last big prodcut is a sting library. so it seems its the string library decade. same deal with jeager/imperia. more string regular orchestral. so in terms of business decisions, there must be a demand for string/orchestral libraries even though there are a gazillion already.
east west and cinesamples kinda just randomly left the competition and maybe went on to do music.. fall of the world of samples... well at least not as before.
sonokenetics is doing something inovative but keep doing similar thing within that innovation.
output is very cool for hyrbid stuff but also did strings and brass.
so it might be that in general all of those companies are just cashing in in our demand for orchestral libraries and the winner is the one who keeps us "engaged" with "error" newsletters, big names etc. at the end of the day its a business and business rely on customer demand to make a profit. they also rely on innovation but innovation is something of a keyword for millennials as thats not the only way to make a profitable company and really didnt exist until apple and a few other key silicon valley players and a few other intances in the 20th century where a patent might of made it an innovative product but most companies don't rely on innovation to make it.


as for pro audio the goal seems to be just to copy the goodl old neve and neuman and keep doing clones of that, like we havent aged a day after 1970s tech wise and nothing new can sound as good as a 50 year old mic or pre. jeezz..
but thats the demand. and new products just dont get bought as often becuaser they dont have a nice pretty red knob like the neve.

now outside of sample library i do concur. i can tell that this is exaclty what happened to a very big entertainment film studio i used to work for. the sales dept was king. tech and series/films did sales wanted. for example.. you cannot sell comedy tv series abroad that easily as 1hr dramas that are epidodic self contained (detective series etc instead of long format like breaking bad). but since international sales is where big studios actually make a profit (those US box office openings dont mean much as it did before really) so more of those series where greenlit while netflix and amazon took more risks and now dominate. but it was an indutry where innovation ddidnt really happen except for a few things. maybe within the context of a film a story etc but for the last 50+ years movies and tv shows kinda follow a very similar pattern in story, distirbution and tech.

i guess my point is that there are places for innovation and other places that its not as important as this new tech culture wants us to believe and both marketing and product creators can have a good run. now we defnitly have a big supply (and im guessing demand) for orchestral libraries and those seem to going on steady, while i still think my sonic implants library from 15 years ago still seems relevant and as good as the new ones (minus legato transition).
but most companies and many succesful ones still have sales and marketing kind pull forward and they are doing fine. so it depends.

oh dear lord that was long and boring. and just with 2 beers on me


----------



## blougui (Apr 27, 2018)

No, that was interesting, thanx gsilbers.


----------



## paoling (Apr 27, 2018)

I think that the two things must be balanced (marketing and innovation). Some years ago I struggled with the marketing thing, I thought that just a post on vi-control should be enough to make our libraries know to anyone possibly interested. I was completely wrong. Then I started studying the problem and learnt how to reach a wide audience. It is fun, a nice diversion to the sample editing/scripting job. Now I think that we have reached a point where we can reach the people that are possibly interested and so I believe that the marketing thing is “solved”. Once you have your little customer community and you respect it, you have a solid base to make your job sustainable.


About innovation, to me, I guess that’s the “luxury” of having some time to think about the stuff you are going to produce. We couldn’t sustain the productivity of 8Dio or Spitfire, but I love a lot to take one entire month just to figure out how to solve a specific problem. I get bored too easily by repeating the same process over and over and I love to figure how to solve particular problems. That’s why I started studying Juce and C++ programming to produce one day actual plugins. Not just to replace Kontakt, but to create the foundation for developing more exciting and innovative ideas.


----------



## Ron Kords (Apr 27, 2018)

I don't see huge areas of improvement to be made in orchestral samples. We've possibly been spoilt by being present for an incredible period of innovative growth in sound, functionality, tech, cost etc...

There comes a point when a type of product does something so well that innovation no longer becomes the name of the game. Market share of an established product type becomes king. Irons, Kettles, Phones. Extreme examples but you get my drift. I'm guessing the iron department at Hotpoint is not p*ssing money on R&D right now 

A company in the orchestral/live instrument sampling space moving focus to marketing at this point in the cycle is probably doing the right thing if they want to continue to operate. In the medium term, competitors playing by yesterdays rules are probably going to be in trouble unless they can somehow come up with something truly ground breaking.

Yes, bigger sections, different groupings, new pianos are all lovely but they're not buttering any parsnips...

No doubt there will be other areas of music and sound that experience exponential growth in the near future but orchestral samples seem to have reached a bit of a plateau.


----------



## fretti (Apr 27, 2018)

Ron Kords said:


> I don't see huge areas of improvement to be made in orchestral samples.


We could try and shrink an orchestra sitting in a concert hall and then build a device so we can plug that in our systems and let them play whatever we want (*villain laughter*). 
Kidding aside, in (orchestra) sampling itself I also don't think there is much. We use the same instruments that were used for at least the last hundred years. Microphones (no expert though) don't seem to improve dramatically in the last few years/are already at an unbelievable level. The halls they record in don't "develop"/change as they just stay the same...

So the "only" innovation is imo articulations, scripting, engine, size, seating etc. where companies can really distinguish themselves from other companies in the business (but thats in some way also marketing)...
I see it (a little) like "limited growth" (don't know the actual english mathematical term for that); we'll never be able to simulate a real orchestra with all variations etc. there are. We get closer and closer to the real thing but we never actually get on the same "level".
But thats only for orchestras/other real instruments...


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 28, 2018)

Heh maybe you guys are right.

Just got off a plane and in that 10 hours flight I realized I really don't give a fuck anymore.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 28, 2018)

Daniel James said:


> Heh maybe you guys are right.
> 
> Just got off a plane and in that 10 hours flight I realized I really don't give a fuck anymore.






A religious teaching.


----------



## robgb (Apr 28, 2018)

Coming in late on this, but my thought is that instead of aggressive marketing to convince me to buy something I haven't had an opportunity to try out, it would be nice if companies would spend a little money working out a "try before you buy" system that satisfies both customer and developer. Or, at the very least, start utilizing a return and/or resale policy. In expert hands, pretty much any library can sound great, which is why demos and even walkthroughs just aren't enough. I need to be able to work with the library for a few hours or days to see if it's meant for me, just as I'm able to sit in the guitar shop and play before I buy. Or return it in thirty days if it didn't work out.

Marketing, by its nature, is often deceptive and takes advantage of the consumer by a) preying on our vulnerabilities (GAS in this case); and b) showing only the shiny bits of a product and not the flaws. That's all fine—we have only ourselves to blame in the first instance—but a tryout or return/resale policy would go a long way to correct the wrong of luring a sucker in, emptying his wallet, then telling him his money is gone forever whether or not he actually likes what he bought.

How and why we've allowed these companies to take advantage of us like this is beyond me.


----------



## blougui (Apr 28, 2018)

Oh yes, Rob, try before you buy would definitely have my preference as far as in’ov is concerned, right now. I’m still amazed at my own leaps of faith each time I buy a new lib. All purchases combined I could have bought myself a beautiful synth... and sold it back when the tide turned, money wise. Sorry for melting 2 notions here but no try and no resell is just plain crazy for us hobbyists


----------



## fretti (Apr 28, 2018)

robgb said:


> Coming in late on this, but my thought is that instead of aggressive marketing to convince me to buy something I haven't had an opportunity to try out, it would be nice if companies would spend a little money working out a "try before you buy" system that satisfies both customer and developer. Or, at the very least, start utilizing a return and/or resale policy. In expert hands, pretty much any library can sound great, which is why demos and even walkthroughs just aren't enough. I need to be able to work with the library for a few hours or days to see if it's meant for me, just as I'm able to sit in the guitar shop and play before I buy. Or return it in thirty days if it didn't work out.
> 
> Marketing, by its nature, is often deceptive and takes advantage of the consumer by a) preying on our vulnerabilities (GAS in this case); and b) showing only the shiny bits of a product and not the flaws. That's all fine—we have only ourselves to blame in the first instance—but a tryout or return/resale policy would go a long way to correct the wrong of luring a sucker in, emptying his wallet, then telling him his money is gone forever whether or not he actually likes what he bought.
> 
> How and why we've allowed these companies to take advantage of us like this is beyond me.


Yes I remember a few years back there was a website where one could „book“ a session and then get I think 30min it was to try it out completely over a „stream“ (so you basically controlled another computer over the web wich was setup with Kontakt and the Library you wanted to test). I used that for a few Project Sam libraries back then. Don’t Know if it still exists or what libraries were all available. Wasn‘t the prefect solution either but better then having to download 100 Gb only to try it out for one day...also was better in terms of copyright protection I believe as you didn‘t have any actual files of the library itself on your system wich could be cracked.


----------



## robgb (Apr 28, 2018)

fretti said:


> Yes I remember a few years back there was a website where one could „book“ a session and then get I think 30min it was to try it out completely over a „stream“ (so you basically controlled another computer over the web wich was setup with Kontakt and the Library you wanted to test). I used that for a few Project Sam libraries back then. Don’t Know if it still exists or what libraries were all available. Wasn‘t the prefect solution either but better then having to download 100 Gb only to try it out for one day...also was better in terms of copyright protection I believe as you didn‘t have any actual files of the library itself on your system wich could be cracked.


It stills exists, but the latency is so bad it's pretty much worthless.


----------



## fretti (Apr 28, 2018)

robgb said:


> It stills exists, but the latency is so bad it's pretty much worthless.


That’s how memory fools me then
Thought it was actually quite a good method. But I don’t think Spitfire (just one example here though) will allow one to download 180 Gb HZ Strings and then says „yeah alright if you don‘t like it just delete it and you get your money back“...so questionable how that could be technically achieved?!


----------



## robgb (Apr 28, 2018)

fretti said:


> That’s how memory fools me then
> Thought it was actually quite a good method. But I don’t think Spitfire (just one example here though) will allow one to download 180 Gb HZ Strings and then says „yeah alright if you don‘t like it just delete it and you get your money back“...so questionable how that could be technically achieved?!


Well, if Spitfire is migrating to its own player (as they did with HZ Strings), they could build in a timer pretty easily I would think. Software developers have been doing this for decades. It ain't rocket science. But it would also be nice if Kontakt had a way of doing this as well. I'm not sure what Native Instruments' problem is. I can only assume that most developers don't WANT to offer trials—not because they fear piracy or whatever (everything gets pirated anyway), but because they fear too many customers would try their library out and pass.


----------



## ism (Apr 28, 2018)

robgb said:


> Well, if Spitfire is migrating to its own player (as they did with HZ Strings), they could build in a timer pretty easily I would think. Software developers have been doing this for decades. It ain't rocket science. But it would also be nice if Kontakt had a way of doing this as well. I'm not sure what Native Instruments' problem is. I can only assume that most developers don't WANT to offer trials—not because they fear piracy or whatever (everything gets pirated anyway), but because they fear too many customers would try their library out and pass.



I think the issue is that Kontakt does offer trial libraries, but that its been so widely hacked that releasing a demo is in effect the same as releasing the full library. Copy protection is a very, very hard technical problem.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 28, 2018)

Given the fairly detailed walk through of libraries on YouTube, I consider their purchase much less of a risk than tears ago.


----------



## robgb (Apr 28, 2018)

ism said:


> I think the issue is that Kontakt does offer trial libraries, but that its been so widely hacked that releasing a demo is in effect the same as releasing the full library. Copy protection is a very, very hard technical problem.


It's actually a pointless one. Every library can be hacked and probably has been. As a novelist, I'm quite aware of piracy. I learned long ago not to fret over it. The people who steal books and software are not people who would buy these things if there was no alternative. So I know, as an author, I'm not really losing any royalties.


----------



## robgb (Apr 28, 2018)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Given the fairly detailed walk through of libraries on YouTube, I consider their purchase much less of a risk than tears ago.


I always wonder what those walkthroughs are avoiding showing us. The walkthroughs by actual purchasers are much more useful. Even so, it's not the same as having it in your hands.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 28, 2018)

robgb said:


> I always wonder what those walkthroughs are avoiding showing us. The walkthroughs by actual purchasers are much more useful. Even so, it's not the same as having it in your hands.



Which is always considered a fine reason to buy it!


----------



## blougui (Apr 28, 2018)

Having had the Sable test patches, 2 or 3 arts for some sections, it made me take the plunge last Black Friday when the sale was reaaaally good.


----------



## blougui (Apr 28, 2018)

Best-Service try out isn’t ideed very efficient. It gives an idea of tone and timbre more than anything else. A bit of workflow as well.
But playability ? That’s another story.


----------

