Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Sample Modeling The Trumpet v3

Daryl said:
I think that there are base samples and everything else is done with filters.

D
Click to expand...
From the manual:
"Our virtual instrument uses recorded samples of real trumpet as base material. This proved to be the best choice to preserve the timbral characteristics of the original instrument. We used state- of-the-art recording techniques, including multi-microphone placement, according to the radiation characteristics of the instrument. But we went beyond. All sounds were recorded in an anechoic chamber. To our knowledge, The Trumpet, The Trombone and French Horn & Tuba are the only sample-based anechoic virtual instruments developed so far."

PS: Thanks, Daryl, for the heads-up about this update. I probably wouldn't have seen it for awhile otherwise.
 
Can anyone comment on whether the Trumpet v3 is easier to place in an orchestral or studio orchestra context? I've always been so tempted by these VIs, but I have a deep, deep fear of not being able to get them sounding properly.
 
ModalRealist said:
Can anyone comment on whether the Trumpet v3 is easier to place in an orchestral or studio orchestra context? I've always been so tempted by these VIs, but I have a deep, deep fear of not being able to get them sounding properly.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's dead easy. Load instrument, pan, distance (within the SM GUI), send to your reverb and you're good to go.

D
 
This is good stuff. Attacks are independent from the dynamics control, the ERs sound just as they are supposed to and the distance control works nice too. Nice work!
 
Can someone post a demo of the Trumpet V3, preferably in an orchestral context? I'd love to hear it.

I'd also like to hear what the ensemble mode sounds like.
 
It all depends what you call physical modeling. That's always been a slightly nebulous term.

As I understand it, "physical modeling" generally means the waveform is calculated by an algorithm based on a model (Karplus-Strong, waveguide, whatever). Whether it's done that way or stored as a sample may not be what makes the biggest difference to the end result. The processing is probably the main thing.

Sample Modeling is something else, but I don't know how their system works.
 
Geocranium said:
Can someone post a demo of the Trumpet V3, preferably in an orchestral context? I'd love to hear it.

I'd also like to hear what the ensemble mode sounds like.
Click to expand...

+1

It looks fantastic, but I'm kinda sceptical about the ease of use in orchestral context, especially with other wet samples.
 
dfhagai said:
Can someone finally explain to me how can you do physical modelling within Kontakt?
It's a sampler...I don't get it :)
Click to expand...

It's not pure Physical Modeling (and never stated that it is), it's a bit of a hybrid option they've developed and updated over time. Using traditional recordings as the base, then analyzing and sometimes deconstructing them, and having the sampler trigger the correct audio to recreate audio but allow for real time playable instrument. Among the scripting there's probably a lot of other things going on under the hood with all of Kontakt's filters, envelopes, convolver, effects...etc

While Kontakt is mostly a sample playback engine, Sample Modeling itself is no concept that's "just samples", but also isn't relying on straight mathematics to create audio out of thin cpu.

personally. I'm interested in the Timbral Shaper. I've had a real time concept with that floating in my head for a little while now. I think it's all neat stuff, even if I don't have any of the products. (I did want them all a while back when making music for things was the focus, now I kinda just wait for updates and read/listen, and smile to see how parallel Giorgio's/Sample modeling's approach are to some of this stuff... even if it's way different too, then trying to see if I can wonder what they are up to. It's like sending riddles to an old friend).

Still some of my fave developers, because it's definitely such tricky work, and they've been up to it for so long.
 
But how far can you go with only filters involved?
Where's all the math talked about on they're "Technology" falls into place?
(broken link removed)

EDIT:
Just saw your reply Kinidiot. you should change your name :) thanks for the info!
 
Last edited:
Earlier in the thread I researched the price and it was $263 for The Saxes, today it's $296.
 
sleepy hollow said:
They offer two bundles, maybe you mixed those up?
The Saxophones and The Sax Brothers
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're right. Current price is The Saxophones for $296 (SWAM engine) and The Sax Brothers for $273. Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I had clicked on the SWAM price earlier in this thread.

Which here again is my confusion. Why only $20 difference if one is 'so much better' than the other and why even sell the previous version still? It's no biggie, I just don't get it. Of course they set the price and it's their product, and I respect that. But when I went through all of this, I think a couple of years ago, with such a small price difference though I think it was larger then, it seems they're the same product. Listening to the demos (way back when and there wasn't many) I wasn't sure what the difference was so I figured to stay with what I had The Sax Brothers.

I'm a big fan of Sample Modeling and use their stuff quite frequently though not exclusively and would still argue the other libraries are just as good. I mostly use Sample Modeling for solo-ing instruments but many times I also use my other libraries for solo-ing instruments as well. Not sure on the playing live stuff, I don't have a reason to do that so no comment there.
 
Nick Batzdorf said:
It all depends what you call physical modeling. That's always been a slightly nebulous term

Sample Modeling is something else, but I don't know how their system works.
Click to expand...

Sample Modeling phase aligns the different dynamics so you can crossfade though them without any phasing artifacts.
 
reddognoyz said:
Sample Modeling phase aligns the different dynamics so you can crossfade though them without any phasing artifacts.
Click to expand...

it is quite a bit more than that. That was early on, they've since added a bunch of new things and have a few new approaches that go beyond just the ability to X-fade between samples, which with today's editing tools is a bit simpler to do in various ways.
 
I downloaded and compared v.3 to v.2.5.2 and I do feel there is more clarity and punch to the notes, but that could be the phase aligning. Always felt 2.5 was a bit synthetic sounding solo'ed but now that's gone. Also the port function (by overlapping notes) is much more pronounced and easy to control. Definitely an improvement and puts theses at the top of my solo and jazz list. :)
 
Ahhhhhh I'm just finishing up a project with v2.5.2 and now I feel like I should've upgraded to v3. Is it THAT much better or is it just minor things?
 
Lawson. said:
Ahhhhhh I'm just finishing up a project with v2.5.2 and now I feel like I should've upgraded to v3. Is it THAT much better or is it just minor things?
Click to expand...

Only my opinion of course, but yes, I do feel it's much better and certainly worth the price of the upgrade. Going through the manual I see quite a bit that is "New" as well.
 
playz123 said:
Only my opinion of course, but yes, I do feel it's much better and certainly worth the price of the upgrade. Going through the manual I see quite a bit that is "New" as well.
Click to expand...

Just bought it! Can't wait to test it out!

EDIT: Super duper impressed. It may just be the placebo effect but I genuinely think it sounds crisper and more realistic. Great use of $35!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom