Instrument Definitions

[Bruce]

Hello- I am wondering how you are organizing the instrument definitions. i.e. how many layers or key switches are you using? Is an instrument lets say for example a solo oboe; is it mapped out in 500 different presets that you have to load to access the entire range of performance techniques available to encompass the entire scope of the instrument or do you use a lot of Midi controllers and key switches and spread the single instrument over x number of Midi channels? If so how many Midi channels do you need to use for lets say the 1st Violins group in order to access its' entire capability?

2nd question: How much RAM or number of Midi channels and GigaStudios do you forsee needing to load the ENTIRE Library? Just trying to plan ahead. Thanks.

[Paul]

Hi Bruce!

We are currently working on a detailed overview of our data-structure and mapping-schemes, where our sollutions will be evident, which will be published soon under Demos/Products.

But I´ll try to give you a brief overview:

There will be basic versions for every instrument, which will enable you to record and program solid layouts with little RAM.

For the detailed work on each instrument you will use bigger setups.
Depending on your demands you can improve your work using the whole sample-pool., which is of course always connected to the role the instrument plays in your arrangement (is it featured as a solo-instrument, do you need advanced playing-techniques)

Assuming you´re working with one gigastudio-sytem (you should have at least 1 Gig RAM):
You´ll be able to program a layout-mix of your whole arrangement and to export it.
Afterwards you can, depending on your preferences, do the fine-tuning of every instrument and export them one by one.

Working this way you´ll of course need a multitrack-program for your final mix. And more than 1 gigastudio-system will obviously be more comfortable in terms of flexibility.

It is our goal to present our sample-pool, despite or better because of it´s dimensions, clearly arranged to ensure easy sample-administration for our users.

Best regards, Paul

[Bruce]

Hi Paul, Thanks for your reply.

I am not sure what the #8220-8230 nomenclature is all about. It seems you have an indexing system of greater complexity? If so then it makes perfect sense. Why load the most complex version for an instrument definition if it only plays four notes in a piece?

I agree most Giga setups these days have 1 gig Ram and multiple setups.

Will look forward to more info esp. whats on the preview cube???

[Paul]

Bruce, sorry for the weird nomenclature, didn´t check the preview....

[GigaMan]

Hi Guys....

Just so you know... most people DO NOT have one gig of ram in their giga studios. More over one gig of ram is a waste, since gigastudio will crash before it can actually use that many sounds. It's better to add another Giga studio system then to add ram ( which is why I have 5 gigastudios ) While Windows XP allows more the 512 meg of ram, the problem is Gigastudio running on XP doesn't work well. I was recently at a clinic here in Los Angeles with the two Daves who are on the development team from Tascam, and when asked why they don't use XP their answer was "We have to get work done"

The fact is that in real life, high pressure studios, XP is not the operating system of choice. Windows 98 is. Even then, performances have to be loaded three times to work correctly. ( try loading a performance, then hit reset and load again. You'll notice it loads much faster ) I can tell you now, I'm not about to upgrade 5 machines to XP just to load sounds. I'd recommend a limit 512 megs of ram, with no single instrument requiring more than 256 megs to load.

Just to let you know my qualifications, go to this site

www.crewoftwo.com

View the quicktime movie I scored. I used 6 760's, 1 E5000, 2 sample cells and 3 gigastudios for that project.

Again. Saying that most gigastudios have 1 gig of ram is misleading, and the fact is if a person does have a giga studio with that much ram, it's a safe bet it doesn't work too well, or he or she is not putting a lot of demands on the unit ( ever heard of the two minute click? ) Most people I talk to always complain of clicks with the gigastudios. Mine do not click even under the most demanding situations. That is because I recongize the limits of the software. For now, the limit is 512 megs of ram and will continue to be 512 until microsoft fixes the memory problem. ( don't hold your breath )

As of right now another composer friend of mine and I are both prepared to purchase this library. ( individually, that is ) We both have warm and fuzzy feelings about it. Those happy thoughts will go away if it means and investment of another $500-$700 dollars per gigastudio just to load a single instrument. ( he has 3 gigastudios )

Let me know what you think....

Alan

[Paul]

Hi Alan!

We ´re structuring our database in a way that enables you to work creatively with little capacity. Of course it will be useful to have more than 1 gigastudio. Still we hope that in the near future the RAM-limitation will be obsolete as the technical progress goes on...

Best wishes, Paul

[Bruce Richardson]

@GigaMan said:

The fact is that in real life, high pressure studios, XP is not the operating system of choice. Windows 98 is. Even then, performances have to be loaded three times to work correctly. ( try loading a performance, then hit reset and load again. You'll notice it loads much faster ) I can tell you now, I'm not about to upgrade 5 machines to XP just to load sounds. I'd recommend a limit 512 megs of ram, with no single instrument requiring more than 256 megs to load.

...snip...

Again. Saying that most gigastudios have 1 gig of ram is misleading, and the fact is if a person does have a giga studio with that much ram, it's a safe bet it doesn't work too well, or he or she is not putting a lot of demands on the unit ( ever heard of the two minute click? ) Most people I talk to always complain of clicks with the gigastudios. Mine do not click even under the most demanding situations. That is because I recongize the limits of the software. For now, the limit is 512 megs of ram and will continue to be 512 until microsoft fixes the memory problem. ( don't hold your breath )

Alan

Hi Alan,

Just wanted to let you know that the two minute click has been solved...you should go to the Giga website and get the patch (for w9[H]. Turns out it's a Windows thing, and the patch actually patches a section of Windows code to prevent it from scanning and locking up interrupts.

But also, I wanted to let you know that I am actually getting excellent results with XP, and am click free and able to use my (1.5 GB) RAM very well. I have certainly heard others complain, but I am quite busy and do a lot of work myself--and do very well with it. My only complaint is minor--load times are a bit longer with XP, but certainly nothing compared to loading a bunch of rack samplers, so I'm not complaining.

Then again, these are brand new, ground up and very high performance systems. I think part of the issues people have had with XP tend to be either upgrade or less than new systems. I've built three new systems so far, started each on XP, and have had no issues with them. In fact, they are significantly more stable than any of my Win98SE systems ever were.

So, thought I'd pass on some positive news on that front.

Nice work on the short film.

Best regards,
Bruce