# Differences in audio quality among library developers



## DonnieChristian (Oct 19, 2004)

This has always bothered me. With todays budgets and great gear readily availible why is there such a huge difference between audio quality and developers? I also do not think that this is brought up enough either. I mean why should I invest tens of thousands of dollars on gear and weeks just planning mic and player positions when the average person isn't going to notice the difference between my sound and a sound which has been saturated in noise reduction, has phasing problems, and all the ends of the files immediately fade out with no room?

Just a thought.......


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 19, 2004)

I think people notice the difference. I do, at least with the VSL stuff. However, some of the noise in the other libraries is actually desireable (not always, but sometimes it lends a more believable performance.) 

I love my VSL stuff, but the reason I have the Project SAM stuff is because it sounds less "clinical" and more real (not every note is harmonically perfect, just like a real brass section performance - of course you can detune the VSL instruments but that could open up another can of worms.) Some of the noise found on certain instruments recorded on the EWQLSO libraries is desireable to me (like some of the sounds of the instrument string being let up in the release samples) because it lends an air to the performance - VSL is clinically perfect on many of the instruments by comparison. I use both for different reasons to achieve the sound I'm hearing in my head.

You're stuff sounds really great engineering wise. I haven't used it so I can only go by the demos themselves.


----------



## fv (Oct 19, 2004)

Hi,

VHS or Beta? Mp3 or .wav? Some people don't notice the difference (although I think very few of us don't), others do and some others *choose* to use sounds that may not be as impeccably perfect as Frederick pointed out. 

I, personally, think that, just as a painter needs many different colours to realize his art, so, too, does a composer (I know - a tired old analogy - now where is that puking emoticon? :lol: ). There are times when the rawness of a sample that may not be as technically perfect as another evokes the exact mood that one needs in a composition. There are other times where, it needs to be flawless. Being in a position where you, as the composer, have the choice, is a good thing IMHO. Nothing new here.

Donnie, I'm sure that your customers appreciate the effort and money that you go through in order to achieve the best possible sound for your libs. The difficulty (for you and any other developer) comes in knowing how much is optimal for your business to be profitable. Character libs will always have a certain desirability to them IMHO. Having character does not mean that quality needs to be skimped on though.

FV


----------



## Herman Witkam (Oct 19, 2004)

Well, I'm pretty sure I'd notice phasing problems and noise-reduced samples. Using high end pre amps and converters sounds crucial to me as well. If a developer uses really bad gear and sells at a high price he wouldn't sell much of his products. Bad acoustics are pretty easily noticed as well.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Oct 19, 2004)

Hey Donny, 

I am sure everyone understands the quality of your samples from every aspect .



> They indeed sound really natural. Just hearing the woodwinds in the Mercury demo got me hook. The Chromatic percussions samples are awesome. And you can even hear the breath of the player in the Grandfather basson demo.
> 
> At first I thought it was not a mock up cause of this. And still I am wondering about it! Some sound too true to be real or...mmm mocked up



With comments like this arising all around forums and mouth to mouth , i think you are on the good way Donny . Time will bring you justice


----------



## Simon Ravn (Oct 20, 2004)

Maybe because this isn't what makes the difference between a great sample-library and a bad one? The most important thing is how the stuff is played, how you encourage/explain to the musicians how to play the notes. I couldn't care less about 192khz, 96khz, 24-bit and bla bla technical rubbish like that. Eventually it's the authenticity and the live-ness of the sound which counts.

Of course, if you use a $10 mic from Wallmart, you're not gonna get a satisfactory sound. But if you hire an engineer who has recorded those instruments many times before, you're not going to get terrible results. Then the rest is up to what kind of sampling philosophy you use during the recording sessions.


----------



## DonnieChristian (Oct 20, 2004)

Simon Ravn said:


> Maybe because this isn't what makes the difference between a great sample-library and a bad one? The most important thing is how the stuff is played, how you encourage/explain to the musicians how to play the notes. I couldn't care less about 192khz, 96khz, 24-bit and bla bla technical rubbish like that. Eventually it's the authenticity and the live-ness of the sound which counts.
> 
> Of course, if you use a $10 mic from Wallmart, you're not gonna get a satisfactory sound. But if you hire an engineer who has recorded those instruments many times before, you're not going to get terrible results. Then the rest is up to what kind of sampling philosophy you use during the recording sessions.



Simon,

This is all very true and I could not agree more. "How" the player plays the notes is arguably just as if not more important. I also don't have an issue with whether it's recorded at 192khz or 16bit 44.1khz. Both can, and should, sound great. It's the libraries that exhibit that wild overly noise reduced phasing sound that sometimes people do not seem to hear. I think in this business probably more than any other that marketing (including 'beta tester') hype does more to decieve than in any other market. I have spoken "off the record" with several "big" composers who in casual conversation will say "X" library sounds awful and I never use it. Yet when/if it comes to a public statement on the library no one says anything.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Oct 20, 2004)

I bet that ProjectSAM has not used very high-end equipment, being a startup company. Yet they are getting 4 and 5 star reviews. How come?

I think they have very well understood, and implemented in their concepts, that there is a difference between "sound" and "musical content".

A well played note on a French Horn in a good hall will sound so much better than a note from a FH clinically recorded in a very expensive studio.

(let's not re-start the dry-wet discussion, I still like DDSB a lot :wink: )

The final judge is the ear of the listener, which doesn't weigh its perceptions with information from equipment specs, but takes the musical aspects of the sound into account (that's why I still appreciate the "dry" DDSB, it is just very musical IMO).

Ear: hey, I like that! or: jeez, this sounds like a car horn.

In spite of the Apogees and other Apologies :wink: 

Take care,


----------



## Herman Witkam (Oct 20, 2004)

Well, if you can't afford to buy the expensive gear, at least hire it. I don't think Project SAM recorded their stuff using a moderate RME interface with the cheapest range of Focusrite pre's. Btw....most libraries get a 4 or 5 star in SOS.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Oct 20, 2004)

Herman: a "moderate RME interface"?? Wazzup??

Hehe, RME is rated as one of the best interfaces. Lol. 

Maarten should jump in to say they actually recorded in 8 bit, because the players and the hall were just too good :D 

Back to my point, I think it is really important to make a distinction between sound and musical content, because musical content (let's say, "applied" sound) draws the listener's attention away from the pure sound characteristics, into the realm of his memory, experiences, associations, fantasies, etc.


----------



## Herman Witkam (Oct 20, 2004)

I know, RME makes really great interfaces, especially great for sample playback, but they don't make AD/DA converters that compare with Apogee and the like, judging from some tests and opinions of some people in the audio industry. 

Of course a library has to sound musical as well. That's what we buy them for :D well...most of us at least :wink:


----------



## TheoKrueger (Oct 20, 2004)

Peter Roos said:


> ...because musical content (let's say, "applied" sound) draws the listener's attention away from the pure sound characteristics, into the realm of his memory, experiences, associations, fantasies, etc.



Thumbs up


----------



## Trev Parks (Nov 21, 2004)

I'd be really interested to know what equipment was used to record he various libraries out there. Worra was very helpful when describing what he used when recording BlackGrand.


----------



## dandean (Nov 21, 2004)

Hi VI forum,

I've harped (probably not the best term) on this topic many times at NSS.

All these aspects are vitally important.

The "front end" of the recording chain
The A/D D/A's
The space you're recording in
The players you've chosen
Positioning the mics
Your rapport with the players
..Do you know how to get the most out of them?
..Do you work with them? Do they respect you?
..Are you paying them chicken feed?
..Are they pros or students?
..Do they play together as a section? Or did you just pick them up for this session?
..etc., etc..

Ernest Cholakis and I have brought up the subject of comparing .wav files from different libraries. If you do this, you'll hear ungodly hiss, poorly applied NR, chairs scooting, street noise, car horns, bows hitting music stands, jets, planes, pops and clicks, air handling noises, really ridiculously long tails which burn up HD space and polyphony. Then there's the taboo topic of how many "real" layers an instrument really has. Wanna kill a thread? Bring this up. I've brought up the fact that in one of the libraries that seems to the focal point of adoration these days, the Trumpet Ensemble took 1 hour and 40 minutes to capture. You simply can't capture with any great detail or accuracy a group of horn players in that amount of time. With the best players, there are clams 60+% of the time.

Why not do a .wav file comparison, since the .wavs are really the heart and soul of any sample library...

Also, with all of the new IR technology available, aren't "dry" libraries optimal for use with IR programs? Add this to the .wav file comparison. 

I also heard from a reputable source that my Brass Ensembles were used in the SAM Horns demos. I've always wondered about that.

Good to be a part of a new forum,
Dan Dean


----------



## TheoKrueger (Nov 21, 2004)

Something which i think is important is : 

Is the developer a good musician or mock-up artist ? 

A mediocre musician/MIDI-man will propably not be able to understand the needs for samples . They just hire an orchestra, take a list of articulations and say : Play a chromatic scale in Stacato with long spaces between notes for example. Then they check the DC offset , if there are any pops , if the levels are ok, if the phaze is ok ETC and forget about the musicality of the samples. ( just an example, not talking about anyone in specific )
People want expressive samples not "Clinically dead perfect recordings which you place into your composition" . There's no use for that .

Sample means : You get a small piece that can represent a whole . So just recording a section of newbies playing violins for example, won't represent the lyricism of an orchestral string section which is playing Mozart . Every note needs to have some sort of passion and virtuosity by the whole imo . Or else you end up with dead samples. That's why sometimes you can hear custom samples with medium recording quality, but great lyricism. Because they were made by musicians.

and btw : Welcome aboard Dan . Enjoy your stay .


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Nov 22, 2004)

Hello Dan, Sir! :D 

Very welcome aboard this forum. I hope you'll like the atmosphere here better than at NS. 

On the subject of sample quality: what about *playability*? As much as I like the sound of SAM horns, I still prefer to use the modified DDSB solo horn, as I find it is much more playable. I have created 4 versions by duplicating and shifting the main programs over semitones. Some slight detuning and they even play very well in unison. The DDSB instruments are well suited for playing faster lines. The ambient libraries often "speak" too slowly and have tails that make faster playing too muddy. Sound quality is a very important aspect, but so is playability.

Again thumbs up for your libraries. I'm still a fan :wink: 

Cheers,


----------



## Simon Ravn (Nov 22, 2004)

TheoKrueger, I think you hit the nail on the head. The usability and musicality seem to have taken a low priority in many libraries. All the technical stuff seems to come first, and that isn't necessarily a good thing. Also, I think it helps a lot if a sample developer has a musical understandment as well - if the only experience they have is in the technical domain they can't know what they want from the musicians. A violin ensemble playing sustained notes isn't just a violin ensemble playing sustained notes... This can be done in a lot of ways, and you can communicate to the players how you would like those sustains to be played. 

I think developers could benefit greatly from having a semi-pro or pro composer on board on their project and letting him or her supervise the musicians and to some degree the recordings.


----------



## Trev Parks (Nov 22, 2004)

Yep, Simon, Dan, Theo....absolutely right. 

Dan, great first post. I'm interested in what mics (and positions) you favoured for your solo brass library and what made you choose the studio you recorded them in. I've made quite a few private libraries but I'm always fascinated to discover what leads developers to choose their particular method.

Like you all say, it does boil down to the quality of the musicians and the direction. I've still got samples I made from years ago on an S1100 that have a great deal of personality to them because the sessions just worked well and the vibe and playing were good.


----------



## dandean (Nov 22, 2004)

Trev Parks said:


> Yep, Simon, Dan, Theo....absolutely right.
> 
> Dan, great first post. I'm interested in what mics (and positions) you favoured for your solo brass library and what made you choose the studio you recorded them in.



I can't recall if I used my Klaus Heyne or Stephen Paul modified SM-57's...
_  

DD_


----------



## DonnieChristian (Dec 1, 2004)

See this is why I don't post my gear anymore. I accidently let it slip to Dan about a year ago that I was using some SM57's into those slammin' hot Mackie 1202 pre's and look what happens. He has totally ripped me off and stolen my signal flow!! :twisted:


----------



## Herman Witkam (Dec 1, 2004)

lol
But then Donnie, you can't steal acoustics...so that's still the deciding factor. Unless someone breaks into your studio and quickly records an impulse of your live room with a mobile recording interface :D


----------



## DonnieChristian (Dec 2, 2004)

Herman Witkam said:


> lol
> But then Donnie, you can't steal acoustics...so that's still the deciding factor. Unless someone breaks into your studio and quickly records an impulse of your live room with a mobile recording interface :D



oh yeah, how different can two garages be?


----------



## dandean (Dec 2, 2004)

[/quote]
oh yeah, how different can two garages be? [/quote]

Don't you mean bedrooms?

DD


----------



## Simon Ravn (Dec 2, 2004)

Actually I did a perfectly fine soprano recording in my bedroom


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 2, 2004)

What's wrong with garages??? :shock:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 2, 2004)

That's very kinky, Simon. Any other confessions?

:twisted:


----------



## Simon Ravn (Dec 2, 2004)

Nick hmmm not for now. Maybe later.


----------



## DonnieChristian (Dec 3, 2004)

Back on topic. I think it would be interesting to do a one wave file comparison of like instruments from a bunch of different libraries. Like maybe a oboe sustained wave. That way no developer could complain about the size differences since it's just one wave file. 

I say we post them here and just it a "one note demo" so that you don't get in any legal trouble with certain developers. :wink: 

When I get home I'll start things off with one of my own. It would be best to do this is 24bit wave if possible.

Comments/Suggestions?


----------



## PolarBear (Dec 3, 2004)

I don't think one single sample represents an instrument, it could be a little faulty one, if you say e.g. G4 at forte. Of course there should be consistency in a library, but in real life there isn't, so I vote for at least 3 samples across the range. I'd not say 24bit wav is needed, but if you think it makes a difference, why not. Sometimes instruments sound better in the lower range, sometimes better in the upper. Some don't have samples in the upper upper ranges... 

There is a problem though, almost no library allows the user to make non-musical demos containing only a raw sample. So you got to get in touch with the developers to do that. Good luck!

Simon - now I know why it stood out in your demos, it has another quality than the rest in them 

PolarBear


----------



## TheoKrueger (Dec 3, 2004)

Someone compose a small phraze ( just a couple of notes in a scale , fast , susts and stacs maybe ) and post it here . The rest just render the file


----------



## PolarBear (Dec 3, 2004)

Should I take VSL's celli's portamento f patch? Or will the Trombones far mic be a better comparison? Quite hypothetical though, but also don't forget about the few differences that make a difference.


----------



## Alan Lastufka (Dec 3, 2004)

Hey hey - I haven't done a cello yet - let's do acoustic bass guitars or snares or kicks? :lol:


----------



## synergy543 (Dec 15, 2004)

dandean said:


> Also, with all of the new IR technology available, aren't "dry" libraries optimal for use with IR programs? Add this to the .wav file comparisonDan Dean


Dan, as stunning as some of the IRs are (I'm using Altiverb), its true that you do not have control over the Early Reflections so the placement on the stage remains in a fixed location. Hopefully, in the future IRs will be taken from various locations on the stage so we get the the true ER patterns from these points. I don't think it would take to many different location samples as our sense of direction isn't that acute. However, having "some" variation I think does play an important part in recreating a more realisitic experience. 

The E/R patterns of course are very important as they are the very first part of the ambience that we hear and give us our aural clues about the room. Just as the attack portion of a sample is extremely important in defining the instrument sound.

So this is not a sample problem as much as a current convolution technology problem.


----------



## dandean (Dec 15, 2004)

synergy543 said:


> dandean said:
> 
> 
> > Also, with all of the new IR technology available, aren't "dry" libraries optimal for use with IR programs? Add this to the .wav file comparisonDan Dean
> ...



True. My comment was made in a general sense more concerning libraries either captured in a large space, or those with some sort of room ambience in them. If an IR is added to a sample with exisiting ambience, the result is a layering of the new reverb over the exisitng reverb. From personal experience, I have had anomalies with this. 

DD


----------



## synergy543 (Dec 16, 2004)

dandean said:


> synergy543 said:
> 
> 
> > dandean said:
> ...



Well, if you want to create a sense of localization then mixing reverbs would be a bad idea as the ER patterns would not provide proper cues. That's why sample libraries that already have reverb should also provide IRs of the hall from various different locations. Asking customers to use some generic reverb to match the "mystery" hall isn't the best solution.

Really the more I think about it, having a sound field with ER patterns from various locations is probably the next step to making convolution IRs more interesting and realisitic. Think about how the reflection patterns of each instrument in an orchestra are going to be different. This probably adds quite a lot to the ER aural cues and interest to the reverb. Hmmm... I'll have to forward this discussion to Peter Bakker and see what he thinks.

Gregory D. Moore


----------



## Herman Witkam (Dec 16, 2004)

DonnieChristian said:


> Herman Witkam said:
> 
> 
> > lol
> ...



Two garages...not much. In case you're saying I'm recording in my garage. I record in my attic. The triangular shape of the room in combination with the wood and carpet makes it perfectly dry and combine that with some bass trapping and absorption/diffusion and you'll get nice and dry recordings


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 16, 2004)

Gregory, I agree with you in theory but haven't found the difference in reflections to make any difference in practice. On the other hand, I haven't listened to GigaPulse enough yet to pour heart and soul into this argument. 

But it's really the same thing as using delays to pan instruments rather than using amplitude (the standard pan control. In theory, the panned image using regular old amplitude shifts as soon as you move your head a faction of an inch, and you should use delays (.1mS - .9mS roughly*). In practice, the pan control works fine.

My hunch is that the exact image isn't critical with orchestral music anyway, since your "listening position" should far enough back that everything is a blend anyway.

* One side dry, the other side delayed in increments of .1mS. Each step moves the image over a little, but by the time you got to 1mS the image has shifted all the way over. The problem with this technique is that mono-compatibility goes out the window.


----------



## synergy543 (Dec 16, 2004)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Gregory, I agree with you in theory but haven't found the difference in reflections to make any difference in practice. On the other hand, I haven't listened to GigaPulse enough yet to pour heart and soul into this argument.
> 
> But it's really the same thing as using delays to pan instruments rather than using amplitude (the standard pan control. In theory, the panned image using regular old amplitude shifts as soon as you move your head a faction of an inch, and you should use delays (.1mS - .9mS roughly*). In practice, the pan control works fine.


Nick, I'm not talking about just the panning. Think about how the reflections bounce off of the walls for an instrument on the left versus the right of the stage. There are a lot more location cues than just the direct source. It is a more complex set of ER reflections for various locations as compared to a static set of ERs used to represent all locations. Sounds bouncing off of the walls, floor and ceiling also help us determine our perception of where the sound is coming from. If you make all of the reflections the same, you can still get a pretty good reverb - its just missing a little part of the reality that you might hear for example when someone makes a loud noise in a large church on your left and then someone on the right side makes a noise too. Its those early reflection cues bouncing all over that not only give us location cues but also really add to the magic of the sound we hear. Its a much more subtle difference than mono vs stereo or stereo vs surround - but its kind of the same idea.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> My hunch is that the exact image isn't critical with orchestral music anyway, since your "listening position" should far enough back that everything is a blend anyway.


I understand your point. You can fool most people with just a smooth reverb and an orchestra. It really depends on what level of reality you want to achieve. For most people TV speakers are as good as you need. For others they'll spend thousands of dollars for a hopefully better sound system. Can you hear the difference between complex and static ERs? I'm sure you can but I'm sure you could also make an orchestration where it really didn't matter much too. And if you could A/B the two I'm sure the differences with and without more complex reflections would be much more apparent and pleasing than a static set.

Do you remember how satisfied we were for years with our 8M hardware samplers? They were the coolest thing. But now our peception of realism demands much more and we complain about the deficiencies in multi-gig sampled instruments. Reality didn't change; only the level of our simulations and the focus of our perception.

In a surround system I think it starts to matter much more. Particularly with percussive type sounds. If you A/B with and without reflections I think you'll hear a fairly significant difference. It would be really cool to have a joy stick where you could move the source location around along with the ERs which are eminating from each different position. I don't know that anyone has a machine like this but maybe someone will steal this idea and make it! It really shouldn't be too hard. I'd love to hear it and I'm very certain you could do some really cool things with such a device. But really, this is just emulating what is happening in reality. Its just one degree closer to realism.

Gregory D. Moore


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 16, 2004)

Understood.


----------

