Synthetic vs. Real

[Vik]

But why does real really matter so much? Can't we think of sample libraries as instruments themselves and learn to play them just as we learned to play, say, a violin? Get the best out of them but never assume for a moment that, to those in the know, they will ever sound like the real thing.

Well, sometimes one can use a great sounding library to create a pad for eg a movie scene where it doesn't matter if it's real or not.

They don't really have to. Rather than think of them as simulations of a particular instrument, why not think of them as their own instruments that sound the way they sound and use those sounds to create something wonderful?

Because some libraries are so close to the real thing, without being close enough, the result is often that it's frustrating to listen to - so in a way it matters, at least for me. If one would use the sample of a cello section to create something very different than en emulated cello section, I wouldn't think of it much. And I think we'll get much closer to the real thing, so close that it's going to become impossible for most people to hear the difference. I still strongly dislike the idea that computers have taken over yet another human activity - I don't like the idea that in a decade or two, humans will interact a lot more with computers than now: talk with robots when they call a company, listen to music with very few real musicians involved etc etc. We're already moved into that direction. for many years. So - it matters for me that orchestral musicians aren't losing their jobs and that I know that I'm listening to real players if I'm touched by a beautiful composition. Even I maybe can be fooled in a blindfold test I generally want to know that I'm listening to humans, and not machines.

 

[Przemek K.]

Maybe we should look at the " real vs synthetic " thing a bit more relaxed. I think, as long as we all are aware of the limitations of the great (synthetic/virtual) tools at our disposal, we can enjoy music/mockups done with them. We should always strive to get closer to the real thing, even if we fail sometimes, which is actually very important. A learning process so to speak.

 

[fritzmartinbass]

The real question is, can a real orchestra sound like a mock up? Our local orchestra sounds kinda fake. lol

 

[PerryD]

As a real trumpet player and virtual instrument enthusiast, I would not want to submit a room full of live players to my musical experiments and creations, especially at 3:00 AM when the creative impulse strikes. It would be great to hear them performed by live players but that is a reality for a precious few, even among the pros on this forum. Having recorded since the early 1970's, I can confidently say there have been many wonderful tech breakthroughs for composers to realize the music they imagine. -Perry-

 

[dflood]

I still strongly dislike the idea that computers have taken over yet another human activity

I know what you mean. When the first drum machines came out we used to joke how unnecessary they seemed since presumably there were still a lot of people who actually liked playing the drums, and most of them came cheap or free! But from my own perspective, sampled instruments have enabled me to pursue entirely new vistas of musical arrangement, composition and performance that are not possible in a weekly band practice setting. It’s not a substitute for playing real instruments with real musicians, it’s just a different form of making music.

 

[scottu]

True. While I really have to say that the newest libraries can even fool professionals I showed my Joshua Bell Violin demo to a professional Violinist that I know well. After listening she was excited and asked me who the violinist was that recorded it. So not even she (internationally decorated) instantly noticed this wasn´t real. Good Job embertone! When I told her she could not believe it. After we took 2-3 more listens she could find very small details that would not be 100% convincing but also said, that if I would not have told her this wasn´t real she would not have noticed...

Sure a virtual instrument will never be 100% realistic. But with what we have now maybe its possible to get to 90% - maybe more. There are just a few instruments that achieve that level of realism. But isn´t it just great how far we have come? And just to make that clear: No embertone is not paying me, I am not knowing the team and I purchased the violin by myself And I can´t wait to finally hear the (hopefully) upcoming cello and viola.

I've done the same with some accomplished professional orchestral string players and they've been equally blown away. I too, am quite looking forward to the cello and viola. Although, it sounds like they may be partially based off the older libraries and my understanding is that they weren't recorded *quite* as rigorously to allow for the same degree of realism. Was really hoping for a ground up "Joshua Bell" approach.

 

[pettinhouse]

I've been a guitarist for over fifty years. I have several guitar libraries that have moments of sounding like a real guitar but for the most part can never do what I can do with a guitar in my hands. No matter how good the technology and scripting, it is so far impossible to recreate a real guitarist.

I speak for myself but I think other developers agree with me.
As a Guitar sample library developer I tend to create tools with the idea to provide something easy to use that fit in "all kind of genre". Said that it is impossible to recreate all the scenarios, all the nuances, articulations with a sample library. The guitar includes millions of variations, nuances, articulations and every mistakes make their parts.
Although Kontakt is a great piece of software that with the scripts allows us to create virtually "everything", a real guitar is and will be always the best choice.

Also, it is not easy to create a guitar part with a sample library that sounds real especially if who uses the library is not a guitar player or he is a classic piano player which eventually plays keyboards.

"No matter how good the technology and scripting, it is so far impossible to recreate a real guitarist."

Well, at least from my side, I tend to create and provide libraries not for recreating a real guitarist but for helping people to create easily a guitar part for their music which eventually keep it in the final track and add a bit of real touch from a real guitarist ( many clients admitted they did that )

As I always say, there is a limit between a guitar sample library and a real guitar which surpassed that limit is better not to waste time and patience and call a real guitarist.

Andrea

 

[mrd777]

I think some of the folks who say "this sounds fake" might be used to hearing the sound a certain way only. For example, they might be used to hearing the instrument with certain microphones in certain halls or different playing styles. There are also different manufacturers of instruments and that can alter the sound obviously. There are many variables. So what you think is "Fake", might actually be real.

True story, someone told me that something sounded fake, but it was a real recording :D - so I don't always trust the "it sound fake" thing.

 

[halfwalk]

I think one of the disconnects for a lot of people in regards to realism is that they think in terms of "this is what a violin sounds like when played" as opposed to "this is what a violin sounds like when recorded." It's like how people complain about amp sims; "This doesn't sound like my real AC30 when I play through it!" Well yeah, duh, it's not supposed to.

So when we're buying a sample library, we're buying the audio engineer's perspective on a particular recorded tone, which is a very personal thing. Take the same violin player into three different studios with different engineers, different rooms, different mics, and you'll have three totally different recordings. Even a $300K violin with a professional player can sound "fake" depending on how you mic it, how it's played, etc.

Our perception of "realism" in sampled instruments is based mostly on our own individual experiences with various recordings and performances, all of which are unique and represent a rather subjective interpretation of music and audio in general. If you grew up only hearing symphonies in concert halls, John Williams' close mic'd scores are probably going to sound very "fake."

 

[pettinhouse]

I think one of the disconnects for a lot of people in regards to realism is that they think in terms of "this is what a violin sounds like when played" as opposed to "this is what a violin sounds like when recorded." It's like how people complain about amp sims; "This doesn't sound like my real AC30 when I play through it!" Well yeah, duh, it's not supposed to.

So when we're buying a sample library, we're buying the audio engineer's perspective on a particular recorded tone, which is a very personal thing. Take the same violin player into three different studios with different engineers, different rooms, different mics, and you'll have three totally different recordings. Even a $300K violin with a professional player can sound "fake" depending on how you mic it, how it's played, etc.

Our perception of "realism" in sampled instruments is based mostly on our own individual experiences with various recordings and performances, all of which are unique and represent a rather subjective interpretation of music and audio in general. If you grew up only hearing symphonies in concert halls, John Williams' close mic'd scores are probably going to sound very "fake."

I couldn't explain it better! Agree

 

[Jay Panikkar]

I think one of the disconnects for a lot of people in regards to realism is that they think in terms of "this is what a violin sounds like when played" as opposed to "this is what a violin sounds like when recorded." It's like how people complain about amp sims; "This doesn't sound like my real AC30 when I play through it!" Well yeah, duh, it's not supposed to.

So when we're buying a sample library, we're buying the audio engineer's perspective on a particular recorded tone, which is a very personal thing. Take the same violin player into three different studios with different engineers, different rooms, different mics, and you'll have three totally different recordings. Even a $300K violin with a professional player can sound "fake" depending on how you mic it, how it's played, etc.

Our perception of "realism" in sampled instruments is based mostly on our own individual experiences with various recordings and performances, all of which are unique and represent a rather subjective interpretation of music and audio in general. If you grew up only hearing symphonies in concert halls, John Williams' close mic'd scores are probably going to sound very "fake."

This, a bazillion times.

Most, if not all, sample libraries are processed. Even a quick denoising pass results in a sound that is far cleaner than what you hear in an actual performance. Denoising alone presents a major advantage when using sampled instruments, because you get clean sounds that can be processed even further or mixed with non-acoustic soundsources (good for hybrid music, for example).

It is usually the production aspect that separates indie sample libraries from the "premium" sample libraries. Premium libraries are often heavily processed through first class equipment by a first class engineer. If you record orchestral instruments in a hall with a good space and put it through tape, you'll saturate the sound of both the instruments and the space together, creating a lush sound. This is how Spitfire get their signature sound. EastWest's Hollywood series are another cool example. Their instruments have the perfect EQ curve and just enough room to make them so malleable that you could fit them into any space and use them in any genre. All major sample developers have their own 'design philosophy.'

Imo, understanding the 'design philosophy' behind the sample libraries you use and their technical specifications will get you a lot closer to "realism."

 

[Josh Richman]

I speak for myself but I think other developers agree with me.
As a Guitar sample library developer I tend to create tools with the idea to provide something easy to use that fit in "all kind of genre". Said that it is impossible to recreate all the scenarios, all the nuances, articulations with a sample library. The guitar includes millions of variations, nuances, articulations and every mistakes make their parts.
Although Kontakt is a great piece of software that with the scripts allows us to create virtually "everything", a real guitar is and will be always the best choice.

Also, it is not easy to create a guitar part with a sample library that sounds real especially if who uses the library is not a guitar player or he is a classic piano player which eventually plays keyboards.

"No matter how good the technology and scripting, it is so far impossible to recreate a real guitarist."

Well, at least from my side, I tend to create and provide libraries not for recreating a real guitarist but for helping people to create easily a guitar part for their music which eventually keep it in the final track and add a bit of real touch from a real guitarist ( many clients admitted they did that )

As I always say, there is a limit between a guitar sample library and a real guitar which surpassed that limit is better not to waste time and patience and call a real guitarist.

Andrea

I willing to bet that good number of people have never or very rarely go to hear a really orchestra in a world class music hall. This has skewed a large portion of EDM, video game, epic, movie score only listeners who then emulate and recycle only what they have been exposed to. Furthering the artificiality "Hybrid" hyper real epic nonsense we've heard so much of. I'm glad the style is playing it self out and finally we can moving on from this musical phase.

 

[Polkasound]

True story, someone told me that something sounded fake, but it was a real recording :D - so I don't always trust the "it sound fake" thing.

In the polka music circuit, back in the days of MIDI sound modules, I was always pushing the envelope of realism by using good sounds and creating articulations in creative ways. I gained a reputation in that respect, but the downside of it was always the comments from other musicians... "You can tell that's not a real sax." "That trumpet still sounds kind of fake," etc. Instead of commenting on what I was able to accomplish with the tools I had, they always felt compelled to point out that parts that couldn't pass as being real.

When I got into using virtual instruments several years ago, the comments abated. With some exceptions, these musicians can no longer tell what's fake and what's real. And it's not just because I can do so much more with virtual instruments than I could with sound modules, but also because I can perform and edit real instrumental performances to make them sound like they could be virtual.

The other day I sent out a couple songs from my upcoming CD to Cleveland so that a friend could lay down the banjo tracks. When he sent back the finished tracks, he complemented me on how good the "fake sax" sounded. I obviously didn't fool him with the sax, but he never guessed that the button box -- the main instrument on both songs -- is also virtual. And he's a button box player.

So what I've been finding out is that, in the age of virtual instruments, "it sounds fake" is not a universal truth. It's an opinion that changes from listener to listener, and in some cases, such a comment is nothing more than a shot in the dark. Sometimes they guess right, but at the risk of eating crow, most of them have learned to just keep quiet.

 

[tehreal]

[...] Because some libraries are so close to the real thing, without being close enough, the result is often that it's frustrating to listen to [...]

There's actually a term for this. It's called "Uncanny Valley". It usually applies to animation but it can definitely apply to music.

 

[tehreal]

[...] Even I maybe can be fooled in a blindfold test I generally want to know that I'm listening to humans, and not machines. [...]

If you're not listening to live musicians at a club or orchestra hall or wherever, you are listening to a machine, reproducing in some fashion what it heard in the past. There was a time when the only way to listen to music was to go hear live musicians. With the phonograph and the radio at the turn of last century, instrumentalists' fates were sealed. There used to be so, so many more. It will happen to actors, cooks, truck drivers, even composers someday. They will be better than humans at it at some point. The best chess players in the world are computers. Sure, it's not art, but with A.I. coming, why wouldn't it master that, too?

I've officially depressed myself now.

 

[halfwalk]

If you're not listening to live musicians at a club or orchestra hall or wherever, you are listening to a machine, reproducing in some fashion what it heard in the past. There was a time when the only way to listen to music was to go hear live musicians. With the phonograph and the radio at the turn of last century, instrumentalists' fates were sealed. There used to be so, so many more. It will happen to actors, cooks, truck drivers, even composers someday. They will be better than humans at it at some point. The best chess players in the world are computers. Sure, it's not art, but with A.I. coming, why wouldn't it master that, too?

I've officially depressed myself now.

If there's no humanity behind it, then it's not art. It's product. Hopefully that distinction still matters to our future selves.

Also, that's getting kind of pedantic, with the whole machines thing. That's like saying you can't actually see a painting; you're technically looking at the light reflecting off of it. You're not actually listening to music, you're listening to air moving past some membranes in your head and pretending it makes sense. And what is an instrument, if not a machine that facilitates the movement of air in a particular way?

 

[dflood]

There's actually a term for this. It's called "Uncanny Valley". It usually applies to animation but it can definitely apply to music.

Good point. The Uncanny Valley, as I understand it applies to imitations that seem real but aren’t quite. The closer to real that an imitation becomes, the more disturbing it can actually seem until it reaches a point where it is so ‘real’ that people no longer even question its authenticity (i.e. really good CGI in films). This can apply to androids, robots, animation, sounds, etc. As long as the imitation is easily recognizable as fake (I’m thinking of the violin patch on my old Roland Sound Canvas) it does not cause much distress because nobody questions whether it is real or not. But as it becomes closer and closer to the real thing, it enters an ‘uncanny valley’ where it seems confusingly close to the real thing but still not quite. I think we may still be in that valley with some sampled instruments although many have now successfully crossed it.

 

[Przemek K.]

I willing to bet that good number of people have never or very rarely go to hear a really orchestra in a world class music hall. This has skewed a large portion of EDM, video game, epic, movie score only listeners who then emulate and recycle only what they have been exposed to. Furthering the artificiality "Hybrid" hyper real epic nonsense we've heard so much of. I'm glad the style is playing it self out and finally we can moving on from this musical phase.

I guess you are right. The thing is, how many of us do attend a classical concert, or listen to a live performance of a soloist (pick your solo instrument).
I think that a bit of balance in regards to sample library /real orchestra exposure would always be a good thing, so that one can keep a more or less clean perspective.
And of course, be always aware of a given library/vi instrument limitations.

 

[Vik]

If you're not listening to live musicians at a club or orchestra hall or wherever, you are listening to a machine, reproducing in some fashion what it heard in the past.

Fair enough, but that machine serves as a 'mirror' of something that has been played by musicians. That's very different from music which has been played or composed by a computer. Of course, some time in the future humans may have the option to get robots instead of kids, friends, partners and so on... but even if these robots theoretiaclly would be so close to the real thing that it would be impossible to distinguish them from real humans, I'd still prefer humans.

It will happen to actors, cooks, truck drivers, even composers someday.

There are machines making food, driving cars and replacing actors. But that doesn't change the fact that most of us (I belive) would prefer to listen to good players over good robots - even if the end result will be more 'perfect' with machines. As a matter of the fact - the imperfection of humans is one of the things that makes humans interesting.

The best chess players in the world are computers.

I know, and I'm not surprised. Chess is mainly about logic and looking at a vast number of options for the next move and evaluate the outcome of it. Music is about something very different. Still, I'd rather watch a match between Carslen and Caruana than a match between two robots, just like I'd prefer to listen to a great piece played and composed by humans over an equally great composition made by machines.

 

[Vik]

Re. the fact that relatively few people go to orchestral concerts would or listen to good recordings of good orchestras: that serves IMO as an argument for using more real musicians, not as an argument or excuse for not using real musicians.