@opus64 said:
Hi Karvala,
Interesting point, but i'm not sure I understand something if you don't mind clarifying:
My understanding of how the piano was sampled is that multiple mics are placed in the room with fixed settings(preamp gain, etc).
Considering only a single pedal/etc condition layer, the robot plays a key at multiple velocities and the microphones capture the resulting sound.
Unless VSL is changing the mic settings for velocity(perhaps to accomodate dynamic range?) or post-adjusting the amplitude of the samples during playback, it seems to me the amplitude and timbre are linked at the recording point and if the microphones are linear, should represent what the instrument sounds like.
If these two are truly linked at sampling time, then it seems the midi->velocity map should allow to adjust for the problem, which in my view is that for a relatively soft keypress velocity the resulting sound is more ff or even sfz.
I'm probably missing something....
Thanks.
That's a fair question. If there were no post-processing, you would be absolutely right, but in practice there is a *lot* of processing of the samples after recording, and amplitude adjustment is certainly one of them.
Have you ever heard the Salamander piano - a Yamaha C5 VST? It was essentially a fun project that someone did on their own, and it's probably the closest you'll come to a piano VST which has simply been sampled and assembled with minimal post-processing (but even in that, they did some). It's worth having a listen if you haven't , and you'll see just how raw and 'recorded' the sound is, and it will give you some idea of the amount of work which is needed after recording to turn it into a usable VST rather than a series of triggered individual piano recordings. Indeed, one might even say that the quality of the post-processing is as important as the recording setup in determining the final quality of the VST.