What's new

Samplemodeling Solo & Ensemble Strings Released

I said I was going to make a CSS / SM Violin Ensemble blend test video, playing in real time. Well, I have a chest cold, so I don't want to use my breath controller. I do have an X-Touch Compact that I use for CC control. I just set a fixed level of CC2 (60) and I set the SM Violin ensemble size to 60, using CC95. I love how nimble the SM strings are for playing with melody lines. I could impart a LOT more expression by using my BC to sculpt dynamics as I play...this was just a basic blend test. I do think the SM strings blend very well with CSS and Spitfire Chamber Strings. They are great fun to play.
 
So basically my listening apparatus are wrong. I'm not only comparing it to "real life" as a player, but to other recordings, and other sample libraries. I've asked some of my closer friends for opinion, and they agree. It sounds "not right". Of course they are all recording musicians ... not virtual instrument players. Granted, I cannot play the SM instruments properly, but, unlike the SM Brass, they do not sound anything like any high quality recording I've ever heard out of the box. Or, even with tweaking, or loads of ER, more 'space than I want, etc. As opposed to Chris Hein, for instance, or Fluffy Audio's Trio Bros.

My opinions are often wrong.

So if LFO vibrato is mechanical and fake "flaw" why not script something that sounds natural? This is after all a sample MODEL. Right? Not that I know anything.

Honestly, I run into this a lot. If I can't fake myself into believing it sounds realistic, how can I expect to do so for others? Yes, the expression potential is high, but so is that of a pure synth. At least with a pure synth patch there is no giveaway that it's not real. I think people are conditioned to expect, and then accept. "This is a cello: ....." OK, that is supposed to be a cello, so my mind is going to accept that as "cello".

There is a very obvious interplay of harmonics and distortions that occur in a real instrument's sound. These are similar between each, but unique to each instrument, and indeed, player, bow, rosin, choice of strings, room, etc. Without these almost random "flaws" a virtual instrument sounds merely synthy. It may well be that I have not yet found the magic dial that turns these sounds on. Even the bow noise, cranked all the way up, does nothing, no matter how hard I listen at it, or what velocity I play at.



Chug?
I play violin, more viola, and like to mess about on a cello.
The SM solo violin does not sound like a violin 3 inches from my left ear; neither does their cello vibrate my sternum! The samples seem scripted to sound as for a listener, near but not too close.

"Phasey" vibrato?
Real vibrato sets off a multitude of resonances, either side of the target note, in the extremely spikey frequency response of the instrument's body. LFO vibrato applied to a non-vib sample modulates the final output of a single "set" of resonances, and can thus sound "synthy", or "phasey". The "body" IRs of SM (or Chris Hein), which are basically like early reflections, are essential to mask or absorb this defect.

I find SM strings sound like a very good recording of well-played strings, rather than the real thing right under the player's ear.
 
Ah .... well, you see, I am much more interested in the solo instruments than the ensemble. Right now I'm mucking about with one of my favorite fairly recent pieces ... and if I can get anything respectable I'll post it. That was one of my main issues .. I hear it's a solo instrument library, and yes, I gravitate toward the cello, and judge it by that, since that's what I know ... first thing I miss is bow noise ... the control does nothing. THe vibrato is phasey. The portamento is strange. It's also lacking that gravelly edge that happens when the bow chuffs on the string just right when ascending to upper positions .. I don't know what that sound is called, but lacking it makes for a very sterile sound. It's not right, at least not yet. The sample based libraries have it in some velocities, but then it's always there, round robin or not, so that is why I had high hopes for this. I sense potential, but for now I'm having a hard time wondering why I'm spending time on this instead of practicing the real thing. The song I'm working on was written with Fluffy Audio's Trio Bros violin, and I LOVE that sound, but the nuance of the way those samples come across (especially the too much always vibrato) has me buying library after library .. nothing seems to work. And I can't play violin at all. So that's not even funny. Might be cheaper for me to hire a violinist. The SM Trumpet, Piccolo Trumpet, and Viola work pretty good for this part too, although the Viola sounds more like a clarinet the way I have it expressed ... using breath controller to impel natural vibrato seems to help, but the attacks are just not right. I will admit, I am not learned pro, and likely doing it wrong.

After anticipating with full respect that I'm very sorry for your disappointment, and your experience counts as any other one, on the other side I have to say that reading your report I have the feeling you are misusing (or perhaps not using) several controllers. The main power, but also the main complexity of this instrument is the need of controlling it like a real instrument, and taking care of the parameters can make the difference between a satisfactory and musical expression, or a frustrating fake and sterile sound.

SM Cello has, compared to SM Violin and Viola, in my (and others) opinion the less performing body IR, and it drives to some discrepancies in sound (e.g. some IR are better for low register, other for high). But after that, it has not the amount and type of fault you described in a properly working and properly played installation.

For instance it's impossible that your Bow Noise controller does "nothing": it can increase the noise up to a nasty blow, or decrease it to an almost unnaturally harmonic sound.

Vibrato is never "phasey" but can sound pretty bad and artificial if the right cc19 Vibrato rate is not engaged and possibly modulated as in a real cello.

For cross strings, attack, and slide/portamento control there is a lot of automatic and controllable variation offered to the user by the combination of Velocity, cc26, attack detuning etc.

I'm available to help you with some tips and tricks and hints, you may message me if you like to verify if any of my comment is real for you as well.
 
Well, my overall consensus is (after many revisions and listening) to almost every example posted here that there are 2 sorts of thinking and assessments:

1. If you like to perform something what "intends" to sound like a violin with all that freedom and options then SM Strings is definitely on the great side here. It is definitely impressive and just does the job without you get a headdache tweaking with a quadrillions of micro articulation management.

2. If you aim for a "symphonic string sound" (bold and rich like from Mahler Symphonies) which then this will be not your land of dreams. It simply won´t do that. I am pretty sure it doesn´t anywhere near arrive anything like that.

Now I can imagine that using at least their solo instruments to goose and enrich an already good programmed string line with a bit of lets say the chaos factor which I consider (just for myself of course) of beeing of an interest. But for that sublimal aspect I am not getting them as I could probably achieve something very similiar with my options what I have already available.

Then on the other side there are very virtuosic aspects of that library which is in most cases very difficult to create with conventional samples, if not impossible to get that kind of fluidity on the lines. I remember I mocked up two years ago a little night symphony from Mozart and that more chamber sized settting could highly benefit sounding good with such sm strings. (of course in the right hands)

Overall I think also (in favor to the sm company) all of their products always had a high learning curve. My first experiments last year using sm brass were just shit, whilst these days they are definitely better (Think of my try mocking up the vader march only with sm brass).

However I am still following that thread as servandus did show a good direction of how to use them imo.
 
The level of quality in sound and expression I've heard from others here indicates to me that I am not doing it right. But several things I'm not understanding, for instance, if it is impossible to not have a nasty blow with the bow noise cranked, then why do I hear absolutely NO change when I crank it up to 127, and all the way down to 0? This, by itself, would really help. (EDIT: I do hear a difference with it cranked, only when I apply much more velocity to the onset of the note ... I have misunderstood "bow noise". So basically, I need MORE bow noise ... as in during the sustain. I want to hear the rosin, please. The sound is "too pure"?)

I have adjusted the vibrato speed, trying to suit the song or passages. I vary the depth of the vibrato with my mod wheel .. have not yet set it up for my breath controller.

I found SM Brass to be easy and fun to play and believe. Even dry. I am finding SM Solo Strings to be opposite. I will continue my attempts.

Thank you.

After anticipating with full respect that I'm very sorry for your disappointment, and your experience counts as any other one, on the other side I have to say that reading your report I have the feeling you are misusing (or perhaps not using) several controllers. The main power, but also the main complexity of this instrument is the need of controlling it like a real instrument, and taking care of the parameters can make the difference between a satisfactory and musical expression, or a frustrating fake and sterile sound.

SM Cello has, compared to SM Violin and Viola, in my (and others) opinion the less performing body IR, and it drives to some discrepancies in sound (e.g. some IR are better for low register, other for high). But after that, it has not the amount and type of fault you described in a properly working and properly played installation.

For instance it's impossible that your Bow Noise controller does "nothing": it can increase the noise up to a nasty blow, or decrease it to an almost unnaturally harmonic sound.

Vibrato is never "phasey" but can sound pretty bad and artificial if the right cc19 Vibrato rate is not engaged and possibly modulated as in a real cello.

For cross strings, attack, and slide/portamento control there is a lot of automatic and controllable variation offered to the user by the combination of Velocity, cc26, attack detuning etc.

I'm available to help you with some tips and tricks and hints, you may message me if you like to verify if any of my comment is real for you as well.
 
So basically, I need MORE bow noise ... as in during the sustain. I want to hear the rosin, please. The sound is "too pure"?)

I agree that in the MF (in PP and FF I think it's appropriate) the rosin is a bit on the soft/pure side, but had you explored the higher range of the cc11? It produces a pretty strong rosin sound, totally comparable or even better than my best sample libraries. When I want my sound more "rough" I just pump up a bit the cc11 and if requested, balancing the sound with lower volume.
 
I had not. That does help the "roughness" although it doesn't quite help the bow noise (as I understand bow noise). When I play my real cellos softly, I often have MORE bow noise (likely because I'm a poor player?) but I hear this on professional recordings or real players as well. I just sat down and played a bit, and yes, I hear MUCH more bow noise ... can be extreme if I want it, or lessen it as well. But it is always there. Definitely more (in ratio) to the intensity at which I play, bow speed, pressure, position, etc. Also something about the attack I'm not able to articulate ... I strongly sense you are trying to help, and I am not resisting, but trying to figure out how I am going so wrong with my expectations of this.


Later tonight I promise to upload something to show what I'm doing and hearing no matter how embarrassing it is.

I agree that in the MF (in PP and FF I think it's appropriate) the rosin is a bit on the soft/pure side, but had you explored the higher range of the cc11? It produces a pretty strong rosin sound, totally comparable or even better than my best sample libraries. When I want my sound more "rough" I just pump up a bit the cc11 and if requested, balancing the sound with lower volume.
 
Well Gene, I have often made comments similar to yours, but about the Swam strings! I find the SM strings correspond to the sound I hope folks hear when listening to me 5 to 10 feet away. But better.. I even stuff my left ear with cotton-wool to hear myself as others hear me!
 
Thanks for your comment. I lay awake last night wondering if out of all ironic silliness I should have tried the SWAM strings first! I do have the SWAM clarinet which I like very much.

But I wish I could say the SM strings correspond to how I hope people hear me. I've spent a LOT of time recording me, and being disgusted at how I really sound ... can you imagine the SHAME of a real instrumentalist turning to virtual instruments? Yes, I know you can, hey? But lack of skill is not the only reason ... lack of editability, control, recording space, boutique mics, a patient producer/engineer that is not ourselves, etc...

Thing is, tonally, my cellos recorded by me in my house sound better than I'm able to attain with SM Strings so far. So I'm not just comparing to the "as I hear myself play" thing.

Well Gene, I have often made comments similar to yours, but about the Swam strings! I find the SM strings correspond to the sound I hope folks hear when listening to me 5 to 10 feet away. But cleaner.. I even stuff my left ear with cotton-wool to hear myself as others hear me!
 
Hi, Gene. As I said in previous posts, I do think the cello is the least convincing instrument in the collection, but the way you're describing its sound (especially in relation to the attack of the bowing and the bow noise) makes me doubt if I'm totally misunderstanding you, or you're doing something fundamentally wrong in the way you play the instrument.

Just out of curiousity, would you say that you need more "grit" in the sound of this example?
 

Attachments

  • SMCello.mp3
    256.1 KB · Views: 259
Last edited:
Haven't really played much with the solo instruments yet, but I just took a look at the solo cello, and my initial thoughts for improving the out-of-the-box sound are:

Go to the timbral shaping page and put all 10 bars all the way up. The cello will sound much more resonant and full-bodied.

The overtones control (CC22 by default, on the Controllers 2 Sound Control page), which is distinct from the timbral shaping, can be briefly spiked at the starts of notes if you're looking for squawkier attacks. It's basically like overblowing on a wind instrument. Turning attack detuning up might also help.

Automating the timbral shaping with CCs seems like it lets you simulate, for example, imperfect bowing on fast or soft notes. You can get some really compelling textural shades that are impossible using only expression control by combining the timbral shaping with the overtones control. Sort of reminds me of some of the bow pressure effects you can get from the Audio Modeling strings.

Experiment with the various body IRs (CC100 on the Controllers 4 Instr & Portamento page) to find the one you like best. I think I prefer 1m, which is CC100 = 0.

My overall impression is that this is a fantastic splitting of the difference between Audio Modeling's solo strings and a traditional sample library. I don't feel as much like I'm playing a physical instrument as I do with the Audio Modeling stuff, but the sound the Samplemodeling solos produce is just so much easier to work with than what you get with the Audio Modeling solos. So it's sort of a compromise where you get almost the playability of the Audio Modeling strings and almost the tone of traditional samples. I think it all works extremely well, and this will probably be one of the first things I reach for when I need a cello.

Should be noted that I'm using a breath controller, a Leap Motion controller, and a custom vibrato script, so my results may not be typical. I'm not sure how this would play with just a keyboard and one or two mod wheels, but I think I'd be frustrated with it if I were trying to work that way.
 
Hi, no, not in that example. I think that sounds fine. However, I do not play the instrument with that intensity, nor would that amount of "grit" or "edge" be appropriate in the lines I tend to play.

It is very likely the fundamental mistake is mine ... I should have done more research (looking longer for an example of the strings played more like I play them, and also that it is obviously a mistake for me to think that I can open up the instrument and start playing and expect it to sound at all realistic (to my ears). I made that assumption based solely on the SM Brass.

Just now back form outside work, during which I thought about it a bunch. I don't think I am really qualified to offer any "worthy" critique. Certainly not in a position to publicly make statements that could be taken as disparagement and cause loss or insult to the makers.

So while I will still try to express my current work, uploading something by tonight, I will refrain from further public comment unless I have something nice to say. Thank you all for your patience and forbearance.

Hi, Gene. As I said in previous posts, I do think the cello is the least convincing instrument in the collection, but the way you're describing its sound (especially in relation to the attack of the bowing and the bow noise) makes me doubt if I'm totally misunderstanding you, or you're doing something fundamentally wrong in the way you play the instrument.

Just out of curiousity, would you say that you need more "grit" in the sound of this example?
 
Thank you ... I'll try those things.

Haven't really played much with the solo instruments yet, but I just took a look at the solo cello, and my initial thoughts for improving the out-of-the-box sound are:

Go to the timbral shaping page and put all 10 bars all the way up. The cello will sound much more resonant and full-bodied.

The overtones control (CC22 by default, on the Controllers 2 Sound Control page), which is distinct from the timbral shaping, can be briefly spiked at the starts of notes if you're looking for squawkier attacks. It's basically like overblowing on a wind instrument. Turning attack detuning up might also help.

Automating the timbral shaping with CCs seems like it lets you simulate, for example, imperfect bowing on fast or soft notes. You can get some really compelling textural shades that are impossible using only expression control by combining the timbral shaping with the overtones control. Sort of reminds me of some of the bow pressure effects you can get from the Audio Modeling strings.

Experiment with the various body IRs (CC100 on the Controllers 4 Instr & Portamento page) to find the one you like best. I think I prefer 1m, which is CC100 = 0.

My overall impression is that this is a fantastic splitting of the difference between Audio Modeling's solo strings and a traditional sample library. I don't feel as much like I'm playing a physical instrument as I do with the Audio Modeling stuff, but the sound the Samplemodeling solos produce is just so much easier to work with than what you get with the Audio Modeling solos. So it's sort of a compromise where you get almost the playability of the Audio Modeling strings and almost the tone of traditional samples. I think it all works extremely well, and this will probably be one of the first things I reach for when I need a cello.

Should be noted that I'm using a breath controller, a Leap Motion controller, and a custom vibrato script, so my results may not be typical. I'm not sure how this would play with just a keyboard and one or two mod wheels, but I think I'd be frustrated with it if I were trying to work that way.
 
After some continued poking around with the violin ensemble, I've found a timbral shaping setting that I think I like:
1566637850172.png
This cuts the strident middle harmonics by default and divides the timbral automation into three groups. Group 1 (#1, #2, and #3) is CC91 by default. Group 2 (#4, #5, #6, and #7) is CC92 by default. Group 3 (#8, #9, and #10) is CC93 by default. (Check the manual to see how the engine assigns these groupings -- it's intuitive, but not immediately obvious.)

I've reassigned the third group to be on the same controller (CC92) as the second group. So I have CC91 controlling the gain on the low harmonics (#1-#3) and CC92 controlling the gain on the higher harmonics (#4-#10).

This lets me adjust the timbre along two axes as I play. (I'm using a Leap Motion controller for this, so I'm mapping CC91 to left/right and CC92 to up/down hand movements.) Increased low harmonics and decreased high harmonics gives me a dark, muffled sound. Increased high and increased low gives me an in-your-face sound that's loud and has a lot of bite. Decreased low and increased high gives me a thin, clear sound. Decreased low and decreased high gives me a weak, almost sordino kind of sound. Right in the middle gives me the default that I set up on the timbral shaping page.

I'll probably clamp the range of values coming from the Leap Motion, because the extremes are pretty extreme, but I'm quite happy with how this is coming together.
 
After some continued poking around with the violin ensemble, I've found a timbral shaping setting that I think I like:
1566637850172.png
This cuts the strident middle harmonics by default and divides the timbral automation into three groups. Group 1 (#1, #2, and #3) is CC91 by default. Group 2 (#4, #5, #6, and #7) is CC92 by default. Group 3 (#8, #9, and #10) is CC93 by default. (Check the manual to see how the engine assigns these groupings -- it's intuitive, but not immediately obvious.)

I've reassigned the third group to be on the same controller (CC92) as the second group. So I have CC91 controlling the gain on the low harmonics (#1-#3) and CC92 controlling the gain on the higher harmonics (#4-#10).

This lets me adjust the timbre along two axes as I play. (I'm using a Leap Motion controller for this, so I'm mapping CC91 to left/right and CC92 to up/down hand movements.) Increased low harmonics and decreased high harmonics gives me a dark, muffled sound. Increased high and increased low gives me an in-your-face sound that's loud and has a lot of bite. Decreased low and increased high gives me a thin, clear sound. Decreased low and decreased high gives me a weak, almost sordino kind of sound. Right in the middle gives me the default that I set up on the timbral shaping page.

I'll probably clamp the range of values coming from the Leap Motion, because the extremes are pretty extreme, but I'm quite happy with how this is coming together.

Nice. Reckon you'll be able to share any examples of how the sound is affected? Obviously always a cheeky ask to ask people to play something, export it, upload it etc but if it was something you were planning on doing, would love to hear it.
 
Nice. Reckon you'll be able to share any examples of how the sound is affected? Obviously always a cheeky ask to ask people to play something, export it, upload it etc but if it was something you were planning on doing, would love to hear it.
I'm hoping to pull together a proper test piece to put the library through its paces within the next couple days now that I'm starting to get a feel for how it works, but if I get time tonight, I'll throw together a quick example of how the timbral shaping sounds vs. the default.
 
I'm hoping to pull together a proper test piece to put the library through its paces within the next couple days now that I'm starting to get a feel for how it works, but if I get time tonight, I'll throw together a quick example of how the timbral shaping sounds vs. the default.

Amazing! Would love to hear the test piece!
 
[...] they clearly sound "compressed" when compared to the natural dynamics, but I think it's nice to have it that way [...] people using the library in other contexts could benefit for that extra dynamic range.

I agree completely, I just meant that I wish every developer offered a choice of two patches to load: one "unlimited" patch and one "as close to reality as possible, including idiomatic quirks and limitations" patch. (Sort of similar to how in the SM string ensembles, they offer the choice of the standard ensemble patches and the "ensemble dry" patches; neither is better than the other, both are useful; it's just convenient for the user to have the choice which to load.) But, like I said before, I do understand that I'm a weirdo in this regard ;) Most people using samples probably see (as one example) a virtual tuba which can play impossibly clean and rapid passages in its lowest octave as a feature, whereas to me it's a bug.


I also want to get kind of a "bow-noise-only-instrument", so that I can add just the "bite" when it's needed.

That's a cool idea! I'm not sure I would have thought of that right away; thanks for mentioning it.
 
The gliss. goes indeed from g5 to g7, so it's perfectly possible in the violin (no "fake" harmonics in the library, then) [...] the first and second natural harmonics on the G string, and the first on the D string of the violin are missing in the library

Thank you for reporting back on this! It's good to know there aren't any impossible harmonics, but it's a bit disconcerting to learn that some of the lowest natural harmonics are missing. With any luck, this will be remedied in a future update.


So, the cause of my confusion was actually how the harmonics are mapped into the keyboard. They're not mapped as sounding pitches, nor are they mapped as stopped pitches

You know what would be really cool? A kontakt script (or a few scripts; I know very little how this stuff works) that triggers the appropriate harmonics when playing as one would on a real string instrument. I'm imagining something like this:

1) When set to natural harmonics, press the key of the open string you want (this keypress will need to act like a latching KS) and then a white-key glissando on the keyboard would produce the "firebird" gliss on natural harmonics for that string. (Somehow the script would have to add a little "fuzz" in between each node so it doesn't sound like a perfectly clean arpeggio. It would also have a different range for each instrument, since more upper partials are usable on the instruments with longer strings.)

2) When set to artificial harmonics, play intervals for the appropriate "touch-#th" harmonics. For instance, playing a perfect fourth on the keyboard would produce a harmonic sounding two octaves above the lower note, and playing a perfect fifth would produce a harmonic sounding an octave + fifth above the lower note, and so on. (The script could even detune some of the partials, when true to real life.)

3) Not sure how a script could accomplish seagull harmonic glissandi? That may require some under-the-hood magic directly from Samplemodeling.


I don't understand scripting at all and doubt I have the mental capacity to ever learn it. If I did, I would definitely make this and share it. Perhaps someday I'll have the spare cash to pay someone to build it.
 
After some continued poking around with the violin ensemble, I've found a timbral shaping setting that I think I like:

Hi pmcrockett,

Thanks so much for sharing your insights. Please continue to share as you discover new things. It is very helpful! (The timbral shaping controls in SM instruments has always been the hardest part to learn, for me.)

Thanks again,
Sam
 
Top Bottom