You might want to keep in mind that the Samplemodeling instruments:

1- use tremendous amounts of processing power.

2- to date are only solo instruments (as was the case with the Stradivarius and Cello that they produced for Garritan). Perhaps this technology is not as good for ensemble samples, i.e., violin sections, etc.

3- because of the above two items it makes it a bit difficult to create, say, a horn section of 4 individual trumpets, 3 or 4 trombones and 5 saxophones.

4- with the specific instrumentalists that Samplemodeling have sampled so far it is difficult to use them in an orchestral setting. Check out their orchestral demos - they are pretty tortured sounding.

And yes, they do sound good and work great in pop and jazz productions. Hats off to them for what they've been able to accomplish.

I wouldn't doubt that sometime in the near future VSL will adopt some aspects of this technology. I would expect that there will be some sort of update of the Vienna Instruments sample player that accomodates this. Also, because VSL has become such an advanced software company we should expect them to figure out what is needed to make ensembles work with this technology and make the sample player not require huge amounts of computer resources.

@Vincent Vaneker said:

Dear community members and members of the VSL company, I am a registered user of VSL’s highly praised orchestral library. [...]

Welcome & thanks for your friendly words, Vincent!

Personally I've always been fascinated by the idea of physical modelling. I owned a Yamaha VL-70m when it was new (mid-90ies), and I used its big brother, the VL-1, in the studio of a fellow producer. The colours you get from these instrument are simply unparalleled, especially when you don't try to emulate existing instruments, but go for unexplored territory.

The main problem I see with physical modelling in day-to-day use is a very basic one: The better the "model" gets (read: the more it is able to mimic a real instrument), the more you have to be able to _master_ this very instrument with all its specific idiosyncrasies. You have to be able to really play a trumpet as well as a flute, as well as a tuba, as well as a violin, a timpani, a harp, and so on. The better the model is, the more you inabilities to play that _certain_ instrument will become obvious. And we didn't even start to talk about ensembles, eg. 20 violins!

That's the good thing about samples: They will always sound as masterful as they were played by the recording artist(s). They have "built-in" musicality, so to say. This will be a constriction for those instruments you actually know to play, but it will come just right for all the others.

In other words - I wasn't able to create the articulations with the VL-70m back than like I did with samples (... even the old-school ones we had back then 8-) ...). This may change in the future when user interfaces progress from where they are now, using intelligent macros and other amenities --- but then again this means that we depart from the puristic "as real as life"-approach.

In any case - interesting times ahead!

Kind regards,

@Dietz said:

The colours you get from these instrument are simply unparalleled [...] 

The better the "model" gets (read: the more it is able to mimic a real instrument), the more you have to be able to _master_ this very instrument with all its specific idiosyncrasies.  

 So for a trained pianist the Roland V-piano sound is better than Vienna Imperial?

@Dietz said:

The colours you get from these instrument are simply unparalleled [...]

The better the "model" gets (read: the more it is able to mimic a real instrument), the more you have to be able to _master_ this very instrument with all its specific idiosyncrasies.  

 So for a trained pianist the Roland V-piano sound is better than Vienna Imperial?

😄 ... good one, Sergino!

Hi,

I am not sure, but I thing that about every 2 years a new computer generation with nearly doubled performance cpus are on the market.

So I think physical modelling will become more and more important.

I am quite impressed by the trumpet, played with an Breath-controller, which I got a live presentation by my brother. (Only wished I could play such a controller as my brother is able to[:)])

As a "fan" of VSL I also hope they will use the best features of both technologies in the  future in order to present the best available product-option to their customers.

regards

 Christian

That was exactly my point ;-)

@Dietz said:

....The better the "model" gets (read: the more it is able to mimic a real instrument), the more you have to be able to _master_ this very instrument with all its specific idiosyncrasies. 

Well said Dietz - this just about sums it up. The challenge to play such a virtual instrument becomes as great as the challenge of playing the instrument itself - so you may as well learn trumpet, oboe, contrabassoon, cello etc etc. That's a lot more labor-intensive than using the Vienna Instruments! [^o)]

Jack, those are all valid points.  But I don't see why any of those issues are things that can't be addressed as the modeling and the computers themselves continue to improve.  You're right, it's not totally there yet, but in the future it seems inevitable that eventually it will make libraries with a million individual samples taking gigs of space obsolete.  It will be interesting to see if companies like Vienna and some of the others that rely on exhaustive recordings will add this approach or not.

Dietz, I don't know that I agree that as the more modeling oriented instruments get better, they'll get harder to play.  Generally, I'd say those instruments I've tried have been much easier to get a good performance out of than purely sample based ones.  The one major change is just having to add breath control or another controller (or trigger via wind controller, which often works fantastic for real time performance on those instruments).

Even without changes in performance, it seems that the quality of transitions between dynamic layers could be greatly improved and the samples required cut way down by using interpolation instead of having so many layers as is often required with pure samples.

I am not so sure I agree it is more labor intensive.  I use both types of instruments and in the first initial passes I can easily get a more realistic experience with a model than with samples.  Because the samples require you to go back and edit them (in the VI), smooth them out between transitions, lower dynamic levels so they sound like the same instrument, choosing the best sample etc.  There are tons and tons of things you have to do with samples to get them right and to sound as good as they can.  With a model sampler, once you get it down pat, you can just play in your parts and it is almost completely done on the first pass (minus any wrong notes you hit).

There are arguments to both sides but I've worked with both and it is definitely much faster to get a finished recording with a model than it is with samples (if you are doing any type of advanced techniques especially).  Because I don't have to sift through 10 thousand samples trying to find the one that fits the passage/note.  For instance it may sound absolutely brilliant to use a 4 second crescendo patch for a note that is only .5 seconds long (because it has the speed, atk and growth I am looking for on that note).  As where with a model, I could have played that in perfectly in one pass and not spent 3 days looking for the perfect patch to fit that note.

The downside would be, there isn't a model out there that sounds as good as the finished sampled product so it's a catch at this point.  My opinion is your best bet at this point is still to setup extremely elaborate presets with all your patches perfectly smoothed out for one another etc to at least save you as much editing time as possible.  Possibly created your own speed controller presets.  It really depends on the stlye of music and the amount of dynamic changes you take in your passages.  I welcome modeling when it comes.  I know I will move to that when it becomes available and good enough sound quality wise.

Maestro2be

I also must say, I disagree with these technologies being more difficult to play. On the contrary: with those sample modeling instruments I get an immediate and very versatile playing experience, that is impossible with normal samples an a lot of key switches. The only drawbacks at the moment are indeed the CPU usage, the lack of strings, generally the lack of available good quality instruments.

Those pure PM instruments, like Wallander for example are in my opinion sonically not up to the point. This becomes obvious, when you wish to use them rather dry ... in that Sample modeling is the first and only competitor, offering great orchestral instruments. There are great saxes, a trumpet (which also works great in orchestral style in my opinion) and and upcoming trombone and solo strings. The company is rather small though, so development is slow - enough time for VSL to catch up! :-)

I really believe that this is the future. Some years in the future a software based pure sample playback won't stand a chance - especially with those rather high prices! We have to remember, when VSL came out it did already break some limitations of sampling: First the interval legato and repetitions, which has become standard nowadays, then the Vienna Instrument software with speed detection etc. and finally MIR. The next step MUST be a new Vienna Instruments software with the next revolution: Transitions between samples (take the AET in Kontakt 4 for example, even if the sample modelling technology is far better!), playable and realistic pitchbend-, vibrato and speed (e.g. tremolo or legato transitions - only sample modelling offers that sounding like the real thing),  Mircro tuning, etc.

I know, that is gonna be a hell of a lot of work on so many samples and many sample in the library (e.g. crescndos) might become almost obslolete. But if VSL wants to keep the pole position, it will be necessary. Finally, all of us want to do music and have a great time doing that. And what playable instruments have is simply so much fun playing! Almost no editing, no constructing ... This is almost the most important factor for me, because i spend a lot of my time doing it and wanna have fun!!!:-)

I just heard a demo of the upcoming SM trombone doing a Jabba excerpt from star wars and it sounds absolutely flawless to me.  I'd be shocked if a purely sample based instrument could come even close.  It will be interesting to see if Vienna gets into this sort of technology in the future.

www.robertosoggetti.com/jabba.mp3

Certainly a very flexible instrument.

However this example doesn't seeem representative of what I'd use orchestral trombones for.

.

@Jack Weaver said:

Certainly a very flexible instrument.

However this example doesn't seeem representative of what I'd use orchestral trombones for.

Well, the trombone is not out yet ... but tell me about the Trumpet: What can't you do with it, you can do with samples ... this is just one example of what you can do with the trombone, as any VSL Demo also is one ...

I don't own The Trumpet. I don't own it because I haven't heard a single demo doing orchestral music that I think works.

However, I may well purchase it in the near future for more pop-oriented music. I certainly respect Samplemodeling for what they've been able to achieve. My casual observation from a distance is that the instrumentalists they've chosen to sample, the marketing approach and software techniques, and the specific sound  they want to achieve is for pop music. There are a lot more people trying to do that as opposed to people who are doing orchestral work.

.

Well, I think they specialized on things that have never been in a proper way: The Trumpet was kind of their field test, and i don't know of any other trumpet of that quality, especially for jazz or pop. I have it for a few days now, so I haven't tried it on orchestral music, yet. I have played around with it and I'm quite confident that you can achieve a rather classical sound with it. 

After the trumpet those saxes where a logical choice, because almost all sampled saxes suck as hell! The VSL Saxes are quite good, but sound a little to tame and classical to me (one of the few VSL packeges, I don't have ...).

After the trombone they will do strings. I don't believe those strings will be jazz oriented ... to me the hottest company right now! Sorry to say so, but they announce the only products where I can't wait for the release ... 

I  don't understand  this stuff about samples being easy but physical modeling is hard.

So, The Rite of Spring was easy.  Jay, did you realize that?  It was actually EASY what you did.  Any moron with samples could do that.  But if you had done it with Physical Modeling it would have been HARD. 

I have now been laboring for more than a year on the VSL sample performance of a symphony that took five years to write and now is taking more than a year to program with samples.  I should have realized it was easy and everyone who shells out some money and installs a sample library can do the same thing in a matter of minutes.

There are literally thousands of choices that can be made with VSL sample library combined with complex MIDI sequencing using all possible controllable parameters concerning ANY SINGLE NOTE PERFORMANCE.   And yet someone who performs (or conducts) a mediocre performance on an acoustic instrument is superior?  I don't think so.  Because I have played in mediocre orchestras and the musicians are usually doing near-comatose recitations.   I find it very strange that here - at the website of the best sample library - MIDI performance on samples would not be understood to be a complex musical performance capable of the highest musical standards.  Whereas someone noodling with physical modeling that he had to learn over a course of a a few months is doing something great?  It took me as long to learn to use VSL and sample performance in general as to learn to play professional french horn in symphony orchestras.

I think that a lot of us forget that most sample use is technically physical modelling. For example, unless you play each articulation at exactly the dynamic that it was recorded, you are already modelling.

In my limited experience instruments like Samplemodeling's The Trumpet work very well for very dynamic music with lots of subtitles of articulation. However when you the put the legato up against the Vienna Trumpet legato, it is not in the same league.

DG

@DG said:

I think that a lot of us forget that most sample use is technically physical modelling.

Well, no. 😊 Physical Modeling is by definition not based on samples. It is based on a programmed model simulating the sonic events of an instrument by digitally recreating the physics. Actually, Wallander (sythesis) and Sample Modeling do both use no PM. For example Arturia Brass does. But I am not interested in how to achieve it, rather the result of it.

As I said earlier: VSL already broke some limitations of regular sampling and others followed that approach. Before that Gary Garritan was ahead of his time with his Orchestral Strings and the Maestro tool. It will always be like that! Others will come, invent something new and make older stuff look old. 😊 One must be naive to believe, that the Vienna Instrument in its present form will be up to it's time in 2-3 years from now. But the samples must not necessarily be outdated until then. I am pretty sure, that in the near future musicians are going to wish for more realtime playability with natural expression and that is something Wallander and Sample Modeling have achieved better. Has nothing to do with me not liking VSL anymore. On the contrary: I made substantial investment in it by owning almost every collection by now. I just hope they will see the signs of the time (that is a german term - I don't know if it translates literally) and apply some new technology to their products. Let's wait for the already announced Vienna Instrument v2 ...

And one comment on the Jazz versus Classic thing: up to now there was simply a lack of usable jazz samples, so developers tried to fill that gap. Maybe the Sample Modeling instruments are better for Jazz. That is certainly the main focus. But the same technology can be applied to a more classical style as well. Why shouldn't it?

Yes, physical modeling is actually TAMPERING with the basic acoustic nature of a sound, by altering the waveform.  Layering dynamics is not the same thing.  You are still hearing mainly a recording of a performance, not a newly created tonality.

VSL, unless I am mistaken, is fundamentally opposed to the alteration of waveforms that is seen with modeling.  Because at least up till now,  their philosophy has been similar to that of classical record companies - to represent as pristinely as possible the original sound created by extremely good orchestral musicians, and under no circumstances mess with its basic timbre.  Of course legato or alternation instruments dissect the performances, but they are still heard purely though in a new time frame. 

One thing that is good about this is it preserves the original musicianship of the players.  What happens with some poor sap who plays an instrument that is then altered by ripping it to shreds and then reconstructing it with physical modeling?  He is a non-entity, that is what happens, at lest in reference to his musical performance.  But the VSL musicians are highly recognizable - for example the solo trumpet, flute, even the ensembles have very distinctive characters.   

Not that I am opposed to physical modeling.  It will probably become normal in the future but right now it has a very artificial sound compared to highly detailed sampling.