# Is orchestral physical modeling dead?



## jsaras (Jan 30, 2017)

After a while, all the bajillion gigabyte libraries recorded with 200 mic positions become unwieldly obstacles. I, for one, would love to have a VST that's similar to NotePerformer but one that works in real-time. Maybe it could have a separate playback mode in which it would use a bit of latency to read controller messages ahead of time and add a bit of intelligent mojo
(auto-divisi, auto legato) to make it feel more musical. 

Synful Orchestra was a start in the right direction. Wallander and NotePerformer took things a bit further. I wonder why this direction has been abandoned.


----------



## Lotias (Jan 30, 2017)

jsaras said:


> After a while, all the bajillion gigabyte libraries recorded with 200 mic positions become unwieldly obstacles. I, for one, would love to have a VST that's similar to NotePerformer but one that works in real-time. Maybe it could have a separate playback mode in which it would use a bit of latency to read controller messages ahead of time and add a bit of intelligent mojo
> (auto-divisi, auto legato) to make it feel more musical.
> 
> Synful Orchestra was a start in the right direction. Wallander and NotePerformer took things a bit further. I wonder why this direction has been abandoned.


Huh? Sample Modeling's been doing that stuff for a while. Unless you mean _ensembles_ of instruments playing together. No-one knows how Sample Modeling plans on tackling that, because recreating a 50-100-piece orchestra would be EXTREMELY taxing on CPU and time with their current stuff.


----------



## d.healey (Jan 31, 2017)

Sample Modelling does not use physical modelling, they use sampling and apply some physical modelling principles to manipulate the sound. We did the same thing with Model Brass - http://xtant-audio.com/product/model-brass/.

Note Performer also is not physical modelling but manipulation of samples. Pianoteq is physical modelling.

True physical modelling that sounds realistic is incredibly hard to do, there are a few good ones available like Pianoteq and some of the Wallander brass and winds. I haven't heard a realistic playable physically modelled string instrument yet although I've seen/heard a lot of poor ones.

Physical modelling is good in that it requires less disk space but the trade off is it requires more CPU, disk space is cheaper and more easily expandable than CPU and the quality and variety of samples is good enough and it's easy enough to do that I don't think we are going to see physical modelling becoming more prominent any time soon - which is a shame


----------



## jsaras (Jan 31, 2017)

d.healey said:


> Sample Modelling does not use physical modelling, they use sampling and apply some physical modelling principles to manipulate the sound. We did the same thing with Model Brass - http://xtant-audio.com/product/model-brass/.
> 
> Note Performer also is not physical modelling but manipulation of samples. Pianoteq is physical modelling.
> 
> ...



Wallander brass and woodwinds are plenty fine for most demo purposes. You'd think they'd add strings to that and sell it as a complete orchestral set. The strings are the least successful aspect of NotePerformer, but they clearly have a start on something there. I hope that they decide to take it to the hoop.


----------



## LHall (Jan 31, 2017)

I believe that some of the Sample Modeling instruments in the SWAM family are purely modeled instruments. If I understand correctly, their new Violin, Viola, and Cello are all modeled. And fantastically done in my opinion.


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 31, 2017)

Nope, still samples + modeling even on strings. Just improvements to the SWAM engine. However I don't think they did as good of a job with strings compared to winds...


----------



## tack (Jan 31, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Nope, still samples + modeling even on strings. Just improvements to the SWAM engine.


Are you sure?



Peter Siedlaczek said:


> We temporarily froze our projects of developing new instruments based on our technologies to allow the SWAM Team to fully exploit the physical modeling approach to solo strings. Our active contribution in developing SWAM-based instruments is the best proof that we believed that the project was worth the effort. Even though some limitations of physical modeling are not yet overcome, Stefano & Lele are to be commended for renovating the research on physical modeling and, most importantly, for creating usable instruments based on this principle.


----------



## d.healey (Jan 31, 2017)

tack said:


> Are you sure?


- "Sample Modeling". Our own approach combines the advantages of sampling (pristine sound quality) with some features of the physical modeling (real time playability and soundshaping of virtually any articulation). It exploits proprietary technologies yielding full control of the instrument and allowing free phrasing/articulation in real time.


----------



## tack (Jan 31, 2017)

d.healey said:


> "Sample Modeling". Our own approach combines the advantages of sampling (pristine sound quality) with some features of the physical modeling (real time playability and soundshaping of virtually any articulation).


Yes but the strings were done by the SWAM team. Brass is sample modeling, strings (and winds?) use physical modeling. That's how I read Peter's post.


----------



## d.healey (Jan 31, 2017)

tack said:


> Yes but the strings were done by the SWAM team. Brass is sample modeling, strings (and winds?) use physical modeling. That's how I read Peter's post.


http://www.swamengine.com/about/

"SWAM uses real instruments samples as raw material, chromatically performed by professional musicians on a wide dynamic range. The resulting timbre is therefore the same as the real instrument"

It would be nice if they provided links to their patents (if they exist) so we could see how the thing works


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 31, 2017)

I think they're still patent-pending. I'm searching all the possible patent databases and no dice.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 31, 2017)

I hope it's not dead; in fact, I hope that the next "big leap" in reproducing orchestra will be something that addresses the problem this thread raises: the current tradeoff between natural, musical performance, on the one hand, and detail and complexity of sound, on the other hand.

Sample modeling and others have allowed more natural playability, sometimes with wind or other controllers besides keyboards, but they don't offer the convincing detail and variety of sound that the most detailed sample libraries do. 

Putting the other hat on, using those very detailed libraries, it is possible today, with enough patience, to create an ever-better fake orchestra now, but man, a lot of patience is required, along with enough computers and so on. And the "performance feel" often falls short.

By "ever-better" I mean that the result is musically satisfying (at least reasonably so) and the composer is able to execute a fairly wide range of musical ideas. It still is nowhere near what a live ensemble does but it's a lot better, if you look back over a period of years.

What has not quite caught up is a means of quickly accessing in a sequencer all the subtle changes of samples required to emulate a real performance. I know that some companies promise this and at least one does it to some extent, but I think there's further to go.

So, that's what I hope for, in some years. In the mean time, a lot of cc data and changing articulations a lot seems to be required as far as the eye can see.


----------



## d.healey (Jan 31, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> I think they're still patent-pending. I'm searching all the possible patent databases and no dice.


Yeah it's said patent-pending on their site now for over 10 years! I wonder which country they've applied for this patent in.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jan 31, 2017)

Hi, 

interesting thread. Reading the Headline, I asked myself: Was it ever that alive? For me sample modeling, ecspecially for replacing orchestra was and still is a niche in the market. It is too complex and time consuming and demanding in a workingprocess, even more on a daily base with tight project deadlines in order to replace normal sample libraries. I find the idea of sample modeling great, but I see that it will at least for the next years remain as a niché in the market unless developers will find a way to make the "interaction" between engine and user more workflow effective. And there comes the contradiction for me: To sacrifice e.g. tweakibility for a lower entrance level in order to get quicker results is hard to unite. And we didn´t talked here about any sonic qualities.


----------



## ohernie (Jan 31, 2017)

IK Multimedia just released their "MODO" modeled bass, so yes, developers are still developing the technology. I think it's safe to say that instrument modeling is a very difficult work in progress. The developers are going to have to master the modeling of fairly static instruments before they can develop realistic orchestral instruments that require a multitude of articulations. As time moves on and sampled products get better, it's going to be harder for them. Expectations are high and the quality has to be there - sounding better than a DX7 "piano" or a Roland Sound Canvas isn't going to cut it.


----------



## LHall (Jan 31, 2017)

Speaking of MODO bass, I've been using it and I'm really knocked out with the realism I can get with it. The ability to change out new strings for old, change the pickups and placement, real-time slides, etc. are just wonderful. Plus, it sounds absolutely real.


----------



## Wallander (Jan 31, 2017)

Dealing with this on a daily basis, I would say some of the biggest challenges are obviously achieving high enough sound fidelity, but also putting a one-dimensional instrument into a room successfully.

Most people here know better than anyone, it's challenging enough to use dry sampled libraries, even when flawlessly sampled. Well, this becomes an order of magnitude more difficult when you're dealing with a completely anechoic source material. 

And this problem stands, no matter if you're dealing with anechoic samples, hybrid technologies, synthesized or PM sounds, because regardless of technology you can't escape the fact that it's dry as a bone. To give you an idea of what this sounds like when applied to a full ensemble:

http://www.noteperformer.com/Star Wars - Main Titles (NP 2017-01-31, anechoic).wav

http://www.noteperformer.com/Star Wars - Main Titles (NP 2017-01-31, er only).wav

http://www.noteperformer.com/Star Wars - Main Titles (NP 2017-01-31, ambient hall).wav

Listening to the anechoic version, well... that's the kind of dry you have as a starting point when working with these kind of technologies. Makes VSL's silent stage sound like a church in comparison. It's like you need a reverb to make the sound not die out before it reaches the actual reverb. 

Additionally, dealing with physical modeling, you have all the same challenges that you also face with samples, which is getting a great sound, a great performance and a satisfying variation in sound which suits the music.

Take the solo violin. For some reason this instrument has become something of a trademark symbol of physical modeling, which is almost ironic considering that we can't even sample it properly and some would even argue you can't record it live and make it justice. Turning your faith to a physical model at this stage is not going to make your life any easier, but you're only adding a new layer of difficulty. You still have to solve all those original problems. But your starting point is no longer a flawless recording of a $100,000 violin in a world class venue, but now it's your labour of love, AKA the miserable squeak. 

Instruments that can be modeled more successfully appear to be the same instruments that can also be sampled very successfully, such as pianos, to some extent guitars and percussion. I believe more strongly in hybrid approaches, or just getting more creative with the samples you (developers) have. But realistically this may not be easily achievable with a standard platform such as Kontakt.


----------



## robgb (Jan 31, 2017)

d.healey said:


> Sample Modelling does not use physical modelling, they use sampling and apply some physical modelling principles to manipulate the sound. We did the same thing with Model Brass - http://xtant-audio.com/product/model-brass/.


This looks like a terrific library.


----------



## robgb (Jan 31, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Nope, still samples + modeling even on strings. Just improvements to the SWAM engine. However I don't think they did as good of a job with strings compared to winds...


I have all of their strings. I think they're fantastic.


----------



## PerryD (Jan 31, 2017)

A short Samplemodeling SWAM strings "rehearsal" today.


----------



## Wallander (Feb 1, 2017)

A stupendous amount of work and skill must have gone into producing these instruments! I'm just full of admiration for how far the SWAM team have managed to take physical modeling. They're more like the SWAT team to me.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 1, 2017)

PerryD said:


> A short Samplemodeling SWAM strings "rehearsal" today.



I don't do "likes', but I thought this was just great.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 1, 2017)

Wallander said:


> A stupendous amount of work and skill must have gone into producing these instruments! I'm just full of admiration for how far the SWAM team have managed to take physical modeling. They're more like the SWAT team to me.


Mr. Wallander-thank you for checking in, and for your hard work at the forefront of these technologies.


----------



## Wallander (Feb 1, 2017)

Oh no, I would not claim to be at the forefront of actual physical modeling synthesis. The kind of synthesis I deal with is pure cheating! Much more in the territory of waveforms and additive synthesis.

I've touched the subject briefly, but had I come anywhere near the results of the SWAM physical modeling I would be doing backflips in my office. My physical modeling efforts were more in the miserable squeak territory.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 1, 2017)

I was referring to the general technology of building virtual instruments, which you have been involved in and a gentleman to boot


----------



## Chandler (Feb 1, 2017)

Wallander said:


> Oh no, I would not claim to be at the forefront of actual physical modeling synthesis. The kind of synthesis I deal with is pure cheating! Much more in the territory of waveforms and additive synthesis.
> 
> I've touched the subject briefly, but had I come anywhere near the results of the SWAM physical modeling I would be doing backflips in my office. My physical modeling efforts were more in the miserable squeak territory.



I think you're being too modest. I love Wiviband and think it sounds great. Speaking of which, are you ever going to have a sale on your instruments. I've wanted to pickup the professional player for a while, but it doesn't ever seem to go on sale, or maybe I just missed it.


----------



## Wallander (Feb 1, 2017)

You didn't miss anything, I don't normally run sales (I should!). If you're an existing customer, send me an email (please use the contact form on www.wallanderinstruments.com if we've not been in touch before) and I will look into your upgrade options.

In case anyone reading this wasn't clear about it, neither WIVI or NotePerformer use true physical modeling synthesis but they are fundamentally based on either sample manipulation or lots of small synthesized waveforms.


----------



## leon chevalier (Feb 1, 2017)

Wallander said:


> You didn't miss anything, I don't normally run sales (I should!). If you're an existing customer, send me an email (please use the contact form on www.wallanderinstruments.com if we've not been in touch before) and I will look into your upgrade options.
> 
> In case anyone reading this wasn't clear about it, neither WIVI or NotePerformer use true physical modeling synthesis but they are fundamentally based on either sample manipulation or lots of small synthesized waveforms.



Thanks for the explanation ! I love my wivi band !

May I ask if you're planning to release new instruments ?


----------



## leon chevalier (Feb 1, 2017)

By the way there is a 100% modeled guitar that exist for some time now but I never read somthing about it here. It's called Iron Axe : http://www.xhun-audio.com/site/xhun.php?page=ironaxe 
Any user ?


----------



## Wallander (Feb 1, 2017)

I'm largely devoted to NotePerformer for the time being. I know I wrote this software myself but I still wake up every day thinking it's the coolest thing ever.


----------



## StefanoLucato (Feb 1, 2017)

Some info about SWAM Technology.
As explained in our recent talk at CCRMA (Stanford University) the technology used in our SWAM instruments is indeed a combination of diﬀerent techniques. SWAM adds concepts of Physical Modeling and Behavioral Modeling to the Multivector (synchronous phase) Sampling technique. We made diﬀerent versions of the engine, each one more suitable for a speciﬁc family of instruments with diﬀerent balance between Sample and Physical Modeling. 
Reeds, that use engine version 1, are more Sample Modeled than Physical Modeled.
Flutes, diﬀerently, use version 2 and in our opinion represent the best example of mixing between them 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. 
Lastly, Bowed Strings (our recent products) are made mainly with Physical Modeling (Digital WaveGuide Synthesis by Dr. Julius O.Smith) plus some elements which exploit the SWAM technique.
The modeling approach is certainly more complex than the sampling technique used in Sound Libraries, whereby obtaining satisfactory timbral results is not easy, however modeling technique allows to reach a higher level of expressiveness and better consistency in behavioral interaction between the instrument reaction and the musical performances, furthermore it allows to make continuous improvements at each version release.



Wallander said:


> A stupendous amount of work and skill must have gone into producing these instruments! I'm just full of admiration for how far the SWAM team have managed to take physical modeling. They're more like the SWAT team to me.


Thank you for your words Arne... We also appreciate your amazing work. 

Stefano and Lele
SWAM Team
.


----------



## alanb (Feb 4, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> I think they're still patent-pending. I'm searching all the possible patent databases and no dice.




I don't speak Italian, but it looks like the "Allineamento Temporale Della Fase Di Un Insieme Di Suoni Musicali per L'utilizzo Con Campionatori" ("Time alignment of the phase of a set of musical sounds to be used with samplers") patent:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...=D&date=20041223&CC=IT&NR=GE20040090A1&KC=A1#

was issued ("rilasciata") to Mr. Tommasini on 12/18/2008:

http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Tmview.aspx?load=espacenet&ApplicationNumber=GE2004000090&table=Invention

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

I still don't speak Italian, but it also looks like the "Calcolo Delle Risonanze Modali E Della Risposta All'impulso Di Uno Strumento Musicale Mediante L'analisi Dei Suoni Eseguiti Con Modulazione Di Intonazione" ("Determination of modal resonances and body impulse response of a musical instrument by analysis of sounds performed with pitch changes.") patent:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...=D&date=20050320&CC=IT&NR=GE20040115A1&KC=A1#

was issued to Mr. Tommasini and Mr. Lucato on the same date:

http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Tmview.aspx?load=espacenet&ApplicationNumber=GE2004000115&table=Invention


----------



## EvilDragon (Feb 4, 2017)

Didn't think of searching for them in Italian. Ehehe. :D


----------



## d.healey (Feb 4, 2017)

alanb said:


> Time alignment of the phase of a set of musical sounds to be used with samplers
> 
> Determination of modal resonances and body impulse response of a musical instrument by analysis of sounds performed with pitch changes.


This is why software patents are a bad idea.
Where is the patent details so one can check that they are not infringing it?


----------



## jtnyc (Feb 4, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> I don't do "likes', but I thought this was just great.



I'm not a fan of "likes" myself, especially after season 3 episode 1 of Dark Mirror, ahhhhh..., but I did like this. 

Nice job Perry


----------



## Vastman (Feb 4, 2017)

leon chevalier said:


> By the way there is a 100% modeled guitar that exist for some time now but I never read somthing about it here. It's called Iron Axe : http://www.xhun-audio.com/site/xhun.php?page=ironaxe
> Any user ?



I too would love to know this... I now have this on my "get" list but the website is real sparse... still, for a 100 bucks... tried to get into their user area but I'm not allowed... rats. sounds great, especially the third song. But the dirth of info is frustrating.

The only other true modeled guitars I know of, and they are great, is the AAS Strum GS-2

Applied Acoustics has been working on this for a decade and it has become quite usable... zero samples. Mind you, I have all of Greg's OTS guitars/basses and others and pretty much stick with OTS but the accomplishments of AAS should not be ignored.

Likewise, the new IK modo bass is pretty amazing. I haven't picked it up yet but have mucked with it and am extremely impressed. First sale they have I'm gonna grab it as I missed the intro!

Most modeling efforts to date seem to have focused on amps/sims/effects... and i'm constantly amazed at how good these have become.

Creating a truly modeled orchestra is a huge undertaking, imo... and cpu hit would most likely be frackin' unbelievable. However, now that AMD appears to have caught up and might surpass intel, maybe we'll see some real efforts into more powerful CPUs... In the past 6 or so years little effort into really upping the ante have stagnated with intel's monopoly.

I think we are far from this being possible at the moment. Efforts such as the Bohemian Violin (sampled with elegant scripting) are just beginning to bear fruit in terms of playability vs hacking something into a real sounding instrument which is something I'm NOT interested in doing. I think the "hacking" is the problem, sampled or modeled...

And the REAL issue is translating a keyboard played instrument into "reality"... whether modeled or sample/scripted... it JUST AIN'T possible to jump that bridge, no matter what we trigger with our little pinkies and breath/feet/keys...

I'm amazed BV gets so close, at least to me...


----------



## Alatar (Feb 5, 2017)

I have been dabbling in physical modelling.
Here is my experience: For Guitars it is possible to make a convincing physical model. But string instruments, such as the violin, are a whole different story. They are much more difficult to model. I think that is, because on a violin you have a much tighter interaction of string-bridge-body than on a guitar.
The reason, I think, is the bow. The bow constantly adds energy to the system. Therefore the bridge-body system of the violin has a much larger impact on the sound shape, than on the guitar. I think on a guitar, the bridge and body only serves as an amplifier. If we simplify things. But on the violin, the bridge and body are much more involved in sound production.

At least, that is my current understanding. I'll let you know, when I get a better understanding .

If you are interested in this, and not afraid of math, I recommend the book "Numerical sound synthesis" by Stephan Bilbao: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470510463.html


----------



## leon chevalier (Feb 5, 2017)

@Vastman, they often run 50% off sales that are present on kvr mailings


----------



## bozmillar (Feb 5, 2017)

One of the big hangups with modeling is that our midi controllers generally aren't set up in a way that allows us to take advantage of all the ways a real instrument can be played. So you either have to make the instruments impossibly hard to play, or you have to limit the control you have which starts to make it sound fake.

With samples, you at least get enough randomness that some of the uncontrollable nuances are at least taking place when the player plays the samples. With modeling, all that stuff has to be programed in on purpose, which gets really hard really fast.

I've been messing with the serenade III reaktor instrument for the past few days, and it's the closest thing I've found to having string modeling that gives you control over everything. It certainly has it's issues. I think it kind of falls apart on low notes, but if you have a midi controller that lets you take advantage of all it's controls, you can do some pretty cool stuff with it.

Here's a couple examples I tossed together last night. Just some random not playing, but it just shows how much control you can get out of it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9olmh8dxvn0qa7d/cello test.mp3?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f2nog4cthuetlwg/violin test.mp3?dl=0


----------



## nbd (Feb 6, 2017)

For string ensembles there is also a resonance effect from other instruments. So two violins playing is just more than 1+1. Haven't really tested but I'm sure that if you put two violins close to each other and play a free string on the other, the other will start to resonate too. And this was just a simplified example. The instrument body will pick up lots of sound vibrations around it and surely will affect the overall sound slightly, thus making the sound unique per instrument, which would be hard to reproduce with modelling.

And the surrounding space itself contributes to this slightly, so in modelling system you would need to add the reverb into the equation already during modelling, instead of adding it afterwards. Could be needed for even solo performance.

So currently modelled ensemble would be closest to a real ensemble where each player is seated alone in anechoic room and then each signal is processed with some reverb where you can position the players within the simulated hall.


----------



## EuropaWill (Feb 6, 2017)

PerryD said:


> A short Samplemodeling SWAM strings "rehearsal" today.



To me, that sounded like a wind ensemble much more than a string ensemble.


----------



## robgb (Feb 6, 2017)

EuropaWill said:


> To me, that sounded like a wind ensemble much more than a string ensemble.


I've heard people say this before about the SM strings. I think it's nonsense. The first time I heard these instruments, I heard them blind and thought they were the real thing. So did several people here on the forum, when someone did a blind test.


----------



## EuropaWill (Feb 6, 2017)

That's ok if you think its nonsense. This forum is an exchange of ideas, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not everyone on the forum has a classical background and their only exposure to strings are recordings and or sample libraries and not actual or extensive exposure to real instruments and players. Curious, How much exposure have you had with real string instruments and players/performance?


----------



## robgb (Feb 6, 2017)

EuropaWill said:


> That's ok if you think its nonsense. This forum is an exchange of ideas, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not everyone on the forum has a classical background and their only exposure to strings are recordings and or sample libraries and not actual or extensive exposure to real instruments and players. Curious, How much exposure have you had with real string instruments and players/performance?


I grew up on classical music, live and recorded.


----------



## EuropaWill (Feb 7, 2017)

Me too. Grew up on classical music and studied it at the conservatory. I suppose the good news is for people that think these SWAM strings sound authentic, Samplemodeling has customers, which means they'll continue to work on it and improve it. So eventually perhaps they'll come out with a version that will pass that critical threshold for me to buy it. Believe me when I say I wish I was satisfied with it, as I don't find traditional sample libraries very intuitive to use as they they don't _respond_ like instruments but the static recordings they are forcing the user to jump through hoops to produce a passable result.


----------



## robgb (Feb 7, 2017)

EuropaWill said:


> Me too. Grew up on classical music and studied it at the conservatory. I suppose the good news is for people that think these SWAM strings sound authentic, Samplemodeling has customers, which means they'll continue to work on it and improve it. So eventually perhaps they'll come out with a version that will pass that critical threshold for me to buy it. Believe me when I say I wish I was satisfied with it, as I don't find traditional sample libraries very intuitive to use as they they don't _respond_ like instruments but the static recordings they are forcing the user to jump through hoops to produce a passable result.


The good news is that most of the people you'd be writing for would have no idea you used a boxed orchestra, especially if you use Sample Modeling. Hell, I think it was Mike Verta who said Disney loved a cue he did with the Kontakt Factory orchestra and told him not to change it...


----------



## EuropaWill (Feb 7, 2017)

robgb said:


> Hell, I think it was Mike Verta who said Disney loved a cue he did with the Kontakt Factory orchestra and told him not to change it...


 I love stories like that. Pretty sure that means legacy VSL right?


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 7, 2017)

Should I post here very good examples, done with Gary Garritan's GPO? No joke!


----------



## robgb (Feb 7, 2017)

EuropaWill said:


> I love stories like that. Pretty sure that means legacy VSL right?


I would think so. There are some great samples in that library.


----------



## robgb (Feb 7, 2017)

germancomponist said:


> Should I post here very good examples, done with Gary Garritan's GPO? No joke!


Sure! I've heard great mock ups with GPO. It really comes down to knowing the library.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 7, 2017)

The reason, why I asked this question!


----------



## d.healey (Feb 7, 2017)

germancomponist said:


> The reason, why I asked this question!


I'd like to hear them, but maybe a new thread would be more appropriate?


----------



## Flaneurette (Feb 8, 2017)

Have been studying physical modeling for little over two years now. I think physical modeling is the only future for virtual instruments. In the next decade, I think, we will see that physical modeling will take wings. It has to. Not only for audio, but in many other areas as well such as the manufacturing of real instruments. Luthiers for example, can benefit of physical modeling and apply it in a reverse way. But also the gaming and movie industry can benefit from it. Being a mathematician is the occupation of the future.

I have seen some amazing theoretical examples of modeling certain instruments. Unbelievable good, but the only problem right now is investing in it. Right now, it sits in the laboratory of major Universities because it's not cheap to make a working product out of it. Given the state of the market, plus piracy and such, it's not really possible to make a living out of it, let alone create a company around it. I would love to do it, but bills have to be paid as well.


----------



## Lotias (Feb 8, 2017)

Flaneurette said:


> Have been studying physical modeling for little over two years now. I think physical modeling is the only future for virtual instruments. In the next decade, I think, we will see that physical modeling will take wings. It has too. Not only for audio, but in many other areas as well such as the manufacturing of real instruments. Luthiers for example, can benefit of physical modeling and apply it in a reverse way. But also the gaming and movie industry can benefit from it. Being a mathematician is the occupation of the future.
> 
> I have seen some amazing theoretical examples of modeling certain instruments. Unbelievable good, but the only problem right now is investing in it. Right now, it sits in the laboratory of major Universities because it's not cheap to make a working product out of it. Given the state of the market, plus piracy and such, it's not really possible to make a living out of it, let alone create a company around it. I would love to do it, but bills have to be paid as well.


I wonder if a fundraiser on Kickstarter or something would be enough to get them on track, if it is money that's the problem.


----------



## Flaneurette (Feb 9, 2017)

Lotias said:


> I wonder if a fundraiser on Kickstarter or something would be enough to get them on track, if it is money that's the problem.



Would love to , but I think that even that is not an option. Unless it can raise something in the range of 3-5 million, and that's just seed funding. The physical modeling field is very big and complex, so much so, that mathematicians only focus on certain specific areas of it. One does only _string_s, someone else specializes in _winds_, etc. Plus, it is still in it's infancy. There are many problems to be solved yet. But solutions are close. CPU costs are going down, as we see with Raspberry Pi zero, where a single-board dual core computer now costs $5. It could run maybe one physical modeled instrument. Which probably means that we are going back to hardware instruments again.


----------



## Lotias (Feb 9, 2017)

Flaneurette said:


> Would love to , but I think that even that is not an option. Unless it can raise something in the range of 3-5 million, and that's just seed funding. The physical modeling field is very big and complex, so much so, that mathematicians only focus on certain specific areas of it. One does only _string_s, someone else specializes in _winds_, etc. Plus, it is still in it's infancy. There are many problems to be solved yet. But solutions are close. CPU costs are going down, as we see with Raspberry Pi, where a single-board dual core computer now costs $5. It could run maybe one physical modeled instrument. Which probably means that we are going back to hardware instruments again.


3-5 million is definitely possible, but getting enough people to donate is another story. It'd be kinda funny having hardware around again, only it's reproducing the sound of orchestras very accurately and expressively. What with how things work nowadays though I think it'd be more likely to just sell it as software and let people use slave computers. Or slave Raspberry Pis. If that's even possible.


----------



## PerryD (Feb 9, 2017)

I purchased the physical modeled Modo Bass from IK Multimedia yesterday. I got the crossgrade price and redeemed my "jam points" for a pretty good deal. You can download the full version (179 mb) and test it for 10 days. Once you learn the keyswitches, it's very expressive. I was an early adopter of physical modeling with a Yamaha VL-1m. One piece of hardware I wish I had kept! I definitely think there is a future in physical modeling. I love all of the SWAM / Samplemodeling instruments as well.


----------



## Flaneurette (Feb 9, 2017)

Lotias said:


> 3-5 million is definitely possible, but getting enough people to donate is another story. It'd be kinda funny having hardware around again.



Maybe it is an idea to start small.  focusing on only one instrument. Oh yes, I would love to go back to hardware and control through software.



PerryD said:


> I love all of the SWAM / Samplemodeling instruments as well.



Yeah it's very nice. But it remains a hybrid approach of both sampling and modeling. I guess that is the best way to go right now.


----------



## Lotias (Feb 9, 2017)

Flaneurette said:


> Maybe it is an idea to start small.  focusing on only one instrument. Oh yes, I would love to go back to hardware and control through software.


A start somewhere is always better than no start at all


----------



## StefanoLucato (Feb 9, 2017)

Flaneurette said:


> Yeah it's very nice. But it remains a hybrid approach of both sampling and modeling. I guess that is the best way to go right now.


.
Sorry for Quoting myself.. 


StefanoLucato said:


> Some info about SWAM Technology.
> As explained in our recent talk at CCRMA (Stanford University) the technology used in our SWAM instruments is indeed a combination of diﬀerent techniques. SWAM adds concepts of Physical Modeling and Behavioral Modeling to the Multivector (synchronous phase) Sampling technique. We made diﬀerent versions of the engine, each one more suitable for a speciﬁc family of instruments with diﬀerent balance between Sample and Physical Modeling.





StefanoLucato said:


> ... Bowed Strings.. are made mainly with Physical Modeling (Digital WaveGuide Synthesis by Dr. Julius O.Smith) plus some elements which exploit the SWAM technique.
> The modeling approach is certainly more complex than the sampling technique used in Sound Libraries, whereby obtaining satisfactory timbral results is not easy, however modeling technique allows to reach a higher level of expressiveness and better consistency in behavioral interaction between the instrument reaction and the musical performances, furthermore it allows to make continuous improvements at each version release.


.
Stefano
SWAM Team
.


----------



## Flaneurette (Feb 9, 2017)

I think the future looks promising for physical modeling. Lot of new and exciting research is being done. Here is one creating virtual Foley sound effects by combining feature extraction, modes and residuals as material fingerprints that can be transferred.

Paper: http://gamma.cs.unc.edu/AUDIO_MATERIAL/paper.pdf

Video:


----------



## Alatar (Feb 9, 2017)

I agree. There are great times for physical modelling ahead. 
The only dark cloud: The end of Moore's Law. Soon computers will not be getting any faster, I fear. And physical modelling can be quite CPU hungry.


----------



## EuropaWill (Feb 9, 2017)

Moore's law will continue to march on after we hit our manufacturing limits on die size, etc... there will be the next quantum leap made somewhere else.


----------



## Lotias (Feb 9, 2017)

EuropaWill said:


> Moore's law will continue to march on after we hit our manufacturing limits on die size, etc... there will be the next quantum leap made somewhere else.


It may be slowed down, though. At least until we somehow find a better material than silicon and a good way to begin widespread manufacturing of it - that is the most likely area of improvement, I think.


----------



## jsaras (Feb 9, 2017)

I'd probably be pretty darn happy with a refresh of Synful Orchestra or perhaps Wallander could port the NotePerformer strings into his brass and woodwind player. It would be easy on the CPU and it would be playable and expressive.


----------



## Chandler (Feb 9, 2017)

I think it is just at a bottle neck because there isn't a lot of info on it and the skills needed to do it are greater than with samples. I hope in the future people do more work with Reaktor or publish guides online, so more people can get started easily. Once people have a template I'm sure we will see more and more physically modeled instruments. Just like how people started making more and more sample libraries once kontakt had a wide user base.


----------



## Vardaro (Feb 17, 2017)

EuropaWill said:


> To me, that sounded like a wind ensemble much more than a string ensemble.


That was my reaction too, Perry, though I certainly admire your phrasing. Some of the lower string sounds were more convincing.
Through a closed door, I have taken a sax for a violin for a few seconds, and a colleague briefly mistook my viola for a sax, so there must be some similarity in the actual timbre: it's shaping, vibrato, and above all, attacks that make the string sound.


----------



## chapbot (Feb 17, 2017)

jsaras said:


> I'd probably be pretty darn happy with a refresh of Synful Orchestra or perhaps Wallander could port the NotePerformer strings into his brass and woodwind player. It would be easy on the CPU and it would be playable and expressive.



What happened to Synful? I forgot all about it lol! I bought it like 10 years ago when I saw their booth at NAMM.


----------



## Lotias (Feb 17, 2017)

chapbot said:


> What happened to Synful? I forgot all about it lol! I bought it like 10 years ago when I saw their booth at NAMM.


The website is still up and it looks like it's still for sale, but it hasn't been updated for years and I can't even get the demo to install.


----------



## chapbot (Feb 17, 2017)

Lotias said:


> The website is still up and it looks like it's still for sale, but it hasn't been updated for years and I can't even get the demo to install.



After doing some searching here, it appears Synful updated their french horn and was planning on updating the rest of their instruments but never did. From what I can tell the software is 32 bit and wasn't updated to 64. Someone reported getting an email in 2015 that stated they were working on a 64 bit version and that never happened, either.


----------



## robgb (Feb 17, 2017)

chapbot said:


> After doing some searching here, it appears Synful updated their french horn and was planning on updating the rest of their instruments but never did. From what I can tell the software is 32 bit and wasn't updated to 64. Someone reported getting an email in 2015 that stated they were working on a 64 bit version and that never happened, either.


Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure I demo'd the 64 bit version recently.


----------



## Lotias (Feb 17, 2017)

robgb said:


> Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure I demo'd the 64 bit version recently.


There's no download for 64 bit versions as far as I can tell.
And to me it looks like the (trial) installer is also broken for Windows 10.


----------



## robgb (Feb 17, 2017)

Lotias said:


> There's no download for 64 bit versions as far as I can tell.
> And to me it looks like the (trial) installer is also broken for Windows 10.


Try emailing them. I think that's what I wound up doing.


----------



## bonedog (Mar 11, 2017)

chapbot said:


> After doing some searching here, it appears Synful updated their french horn and was planning on updating the rest of their instruments but never did. From what I can tell the software is 32 bit and wasn't updated to 64. Someone reported getting an email in 2015 that stated they were working on a 64 bit version and that never happened, either.



Be aware that there are _two_ Synful websites up and running: the original at 'synful' (sorry, I'm new here and not yet allowed to include links, so fill in your own '.' + 'com') - which hasn't been updated in ages and shows v2.5.5 as the latest version - and a more current one ('synfulauth', ditto) where you can download v2.6 with 32/64 bit support... no idea why this is, but there you go... the old site still has the gobs of demos, perhaps it's been left up for that reason alone?


----------



## robgb (Mar 11, 2017)

bonedog said:


> Be aware that there are _two_ Synful websites up and running: the original at 'synful' (sorry, I'm new here and not yet allowed to include links, so fill in your own '.' + 'com') - which hasn't been updated in ages and shows v2.5.5 as the latest version - and a more current one ('synfulauth', ditto) where you can download v2.6 with 32/64 bit support... no idea why this is, but there you go... the old site still has the gobs of demos, perhaps it's been left up for that reason alone?


All that said, I have found that in practice it's much harder to get Synful Orchestra to sound as good as the demos that are posted. I tried the 15-day (or whatever it is) download and could not get what I felt were useable sounds out of it. I think Sample Modeling does a far, far better job of it. Hopefully they'll come out with string ensembles one day.


----------



## muziksculp (Mar 11, 2017)

Hi,

I don't think SampleModeling has a *SWAM* based *Oboe* and *English* Horn at this time, since I didn't find them on their website (unless I missed them).

I would be very interested to see both an Oboe and English Horn in SWAM format in the near future.

Any idea if they are working on these ?

Thanks,
Muziksculp


----------



## muziksculp (Mar 11, 2017)

As far as Sample Modeling Strings, I have all three SWAM based strings (Violin, Viola, Cello), I like the cello the best, I have mixed feelings about the other two. Especially the Violin has a bit of that nasal, synthy tone, which I wish SampleModeling can improve via a future update. My guess is they are still trying to improve these solo strings SWAM instruments to sound more realistic, especially from a tonal/timbre perspective, and possibly some other performance based new parameters for added realism. 

I also feel that using a Breath Controller (which I don't have at this time, but plan to purchase soon), will greatly improve the overall realism of these instruments.


----------



## RoyBatty (Mar 11, 2017)

muziksculp said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't think SampleModeling has a *SWAM* based *Oboe* and *English* Horn at this time, since I didn't find them on their website (unless I missed them).
> 
> ...




They are in the Reeds collection - oboe, english horn, bassoon, contrabasoon.


----------



## muziksculp (Mar 11, 2017)

RoyBatty said:


> They are in the Reeds collection - oboe, english horn, bassoon, contrabasoon.



As usual.. I missed them 

Thanks for letting me know. I will be spending some time evaluating them, and I have a feeling they will be on my PC very soon


----------



## muziksculp (Mar 11, 2017)

Is SampleModeling going to offer their currently Kontakt based instruments (like the Trumpet, and others) in their new SWAM engine ?


----------



## bonedog (Mar 11, 2017)

robgb said:


> All that said, I have found that in practice it's much harder to get Synful Orchestra to sound as good as the demos that are posted. I tried the 15-day (or whatever it is) download and could not get what I felt were useable sounds out of it. I think Sample Modeling does a far, far better job of it. Hopefully they'll come out with string ensembles one day.



Oh, sure... I'm not here to argue either way, just wanted to point out the more current site... 

FWIW, though, I think most of those demos rely on the 'Delay For Expression' feature being activated (adds a 1-second playback delay, allowing the synth engine to look ahead and assemble the proper note connections for each phrase)... if that makes any difference...


----------



## d.healey (Mar 11, 2017)

Neither sample modelling, WIVI, note performer, or Synful orchestra are physical models - so rather than asking is orchestral physical modeling dead maybe the question is was it ever alive?


----------



## Hans-Peter (Mar 11, 2017)

As far as I know Arturia's take on brass instruments was purely physically modelled (with the help of IRCAM).


----------



## robgb (Mar 11, 2017)

muziksculp said:


> Is SampleModeling going to offer their currently Kontakt based instruments (like the Trumpet, and others) in their new SWAM engine ?


Don't know the answer, but I'm not sure they need to. Their trumpet already sounds pretty fantastic.


----------



## robgb (Mar 11, 2017)

d.healey said:


> Neither sample modelling, WIVI, note performer, or Synful orchestra are physical models - so rather than asking is orchestral physical modeling dead maybe the question is was it ever alive?


Isn't your Model Brass a hybrid? Terrific sounding library.


----------



## muziksculp (Mar 11, 2017)

*Applied Acoustic Modeling (AAS)* Instruments are all Purely Physical Modeled, No Samples used to create these Instruments, and they sound pretty good. 

https://www.applied-acoustics.com/products/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 11, 2017)

Physical modeling isn't dead here!

Yamaha VL1. It still amazes me every time I play it. What it does best is instruments that sound like they could exist but don't. I play it with an EWI most of the time.


----------



## d.healey (Mar 11, 2017)

robgb said:


> Isn't your Model Brass a hybrid? Terrific sounding library.


Thank you, yes it uses physical modelling techniques to manipulate samples - similar to what sample modelling does. But the actual source sounds are recorded samples rather than physically modeled sound generators.


----------



## d.healey (Mar 11, 2017)

muziksculp said:


> *Applied Acoustic Modeling (AAS)* Instruments are all Purely Physical Modeled, No Samples used to create these Instruments, and they sound pretty good.
> 
> https://www.applied-acoustics.com/products/


Do these count as physical models rather than synths since they don't intend to replicate real physical instruments?


----------



## robgb (Mar 11, 2017)

muziksculp said:


> *Applied Acoustic Modeling (AAS)* Instruments are all Purely Physical Modeled, No Samples used to create these Instruments, and they sound pretty good.
> 
> https://www.applied-acoustics.com/products/


Seems to me this is something different. It looks as if they're basically modeling synths, not acoustic instruments.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Mar 11, 2017)

robgb said:


> Seems to me this is something different. It looks as if they're basically modeling synths, not acoustic instruments.


What about the acoustic and electric guitars?
https://www.applied-acoustics.com/strum-gs-2/


----------



## d.healey (Mar 11, 2017)

Michael K. Bain said:


> What about the acoustic and electric guitars?
> https://www.applied-acoustics.com/strum-gs-2/


Yep, they're pretty good, missed those when I looked


----------



## robgb (Mar 11, 2017)

Well as a guitarist I tend to be harsh on guitar libraries, and what I heard wasn't great.


----------



## Saxer (Mar 11, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Physical modeling isn't dead here!
> 
> Yamaha VL-1. It still amazes me every time I play it. What it does best is instruments that sound like they could exist but don't. I play it with an EWI most of the time.


I have the 19" rack version... I should switch it on again from time to time!


----------



## leon chevalier (Mar 11, 2017)

hi !
I think pianoteq instruments, xhun audio (iron axe) and ik multimedia (modo bass) are 100% modeled, and they sound really good !

So it's not dead, to me it's more a new born


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 11, 2017)

Pianoteq uses additive synthesis to store the sounds, but people use "physical modeling" to mean more than generating the main waveforms based on physical behavior.


----------



## leon chevalier (Mar 12, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Pianoteq uses additive synthesis to store the sounds, but people use "physical modeling" to mean more than generating the main waveforms based on physical behavior.


ok then, I believed it was true physical modeling


----------



## muziksculp (Mar 12, 2017)

Physical Modeling : 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_modelling_synthesis


----------



## leon chevalier (Mar 12, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Pianoteq uses additive synthesis to store the sounds, but people use "physical modeling" to mean more than generating the main waveforms based on physical behavior.


Nick, on the Pianoteq site they directly link the same link as @muziksculp did, so that mean the initial waveform is generated from a math model. 
As I don't really know what I'm talking about I will not argue more


----------



## robgb (Mar 12, 2017)

I think Pianoteq makes one of the best pianos out there. Unfortunately, the full version costs about $500.


----------



## kurtvanzo (Mar 12, 2017)

d.healey said:


> Do these count as physical models rather than synths since they don't intend to replicate real physical instruments?



Also Chromophone 2 models drums, mallets, and bells. Some are very realistic. The add on designer packs go even deeper into getting somethng that is real sounding but can also be "deconstructed"


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 12, 2017)

Leon, you could well be right. The man's name is not in my brain, because this was over 20 years ago, but the developer told me the piano waveforms are stored as additive synthesis. It's totally plausible that the initial attack is modeled, because there's a lot going on with that instrument's behavior.


----------

