version 1.1 is just in testing,
everything works fine,
the hanging problems on some systems with the repetition tool is fixed.

Herb

Thanks for the words of encouragement. If I sound a little tense it is because I have a deadline looming and well you know.

Just with the one and now 2 days of experimenting I am thrilled with what I sense is the potential of this tool. I just do not want waste time barking up the wrong tree.

Speeding up the sequencer turns the 16ths into a dotted 32nd feel. I will check out the midi examples for possible fixes. Can I assume it is my Keyswitch pattern that needs adjusting ? or the Delay and auto off times?

I have tried just about every possible setting but no speed ups occur.

Anyway I just got the CUBE delivered. [:D]

All right, I've delayed saying this because there seem to be an annointed few who use the repetition tool to show how supremely intelligent they are and the fact that they are members of a unique clique who love it, but ----

what good is it?

If the amount of data that is used on the repetition tool was instead used on multiple single note samples that could be used in the alternation tool, it would be EXACTLY THE SAME with absolutely no programming or adjustment to BPM or your attitude or whatever.

I deny that there is any audible difference between six single note samples alternated in sequence (with no effort) and the repetition tool playing six repetitions (after extensive programming).

edit- I mean in useage rather than theory.

William Kersten

There's a subtle and nuance like difference. Added on top of the fact that there isn't alot of ambience to cover up the nuances that would be missing if you sampled multiple notes


its especially noticable in the brass instruments, you can hear how the players phrase each note slightly differently at different tempos, as well as how the first note usually has a slower attack, while the second note has a faster attack and a slight nuance in the attack, the third, depending on tempi, has yet another slightly faster attack, with another (distinct to brass players) attack characteristic.

The problem with alternating samples is that you dont get these attack variations, and if you do sample them they never have the same sound as if you sampled them in sequence.

Now again...if these samples were recorded with some longer ambience decay then these nuances could be hidden, but the focus of VSL seems to not rely on that.

I agree that the repetition tool takes a bit of getting used to, but I dont think that sampling multiple short notes would be "exactly the same"

I cant prove you wrong tho because there isn't a way for me to compare sample to sample.

Now, about the time issue. I actually think it is quicker for them to record performances like this than to record 96 different variations of short notes.

you get different speeds, different dynamics, and different "tonguing"(sp) and bow speeds.

One thing I can tell you is that I had edited some phantom horns samples, and the brass in that lib has both short notes, and different tempi two note repetitions. I cut some of those samples up and found that I'd always go from a starting note to a "repetition note" because it always sounded much more realistic.

This starts to lie in the realm of what each listener actually hears. There are many who think standard strings samples are fine, and wouldn't know what kind of realism legato adds. In fact until VSL showed up with the legato tool no one really knew how much more realism it would add (well Thomas J, but he's a geek [[[;)]]] )

once th symphonic cube shows up and we have more variations and legato repetitions, there wont be any thing that could touch the realism IMO



and the addition of release triggers [[[;)]]] ahem herb [[[;)]]] heheheee

Wlliam,

each user has different prefences.
What you are using, depends on composing style, orchestration, time schedules, and so on.

In the beginning of VSL, I took my cello went into the studio, and simply checked out, how my sample concept works.

One of my bad experiences with common libraries was, that I never wrote repetitions in my scores. Sometimes I tried it, but gave it up all the time very soon.

That's why I decided, that a solution for repetitions will get second priority after a legato solution.
The repetitions is a lot of data, I know. But my experience is, you can't simulate repetition stuff 100% realistic with single note samples.

Some instruments are working better, but most of them are sounding worse with single note samples (IMO).

best wishes
Herb

King,

Do you mean with those edits on Phantom Horns you used the second note of a two note repetition?

I know there is a difference if you listen only for discerning the difference. The reason with brass is that the first note doesn't have to be accented as much as the others since it is the starting note. The following notes would get covered up by the resonance of the first if they weren't louder and crisper. So this is probably something brass players do automatically. ( I guess I do on horn myself without knowng it.) However in a musical context I'm not so sure you can hear a difference in any way other than dynamics, but you've got an interesting point.

BTW - I didn't realize Phantom Horns had individual note samples. I thought it was just riffs. I have been looking for sax samples and can't find any good ones.

William

I can relate to Herb's reply. Prior to the repetition tool I would never even have considered doing the types of pieces that rely strongly on a ton of repetitions - they always sounded "fake." I'm not talking about just two or three, but measure after measure of endless repetitions - not too uncommon in some types of string writing. Now I can pull off these types of pieces and it sounds "right."

William, other things of concern using seperate short note samples.

Players NEVER play the same note the same way twice, while this is exactly what you want for variation, you start to notice this on things like strings, especially for slower ptr note repetitions. With multiple alternating samples the bow tends to shift position and you actually hear the inconsistancy.

In brass, you can hear the inconsistancy of "moving" notes in the stereo field since alot of them are very directional.

Believe me, I do think its possible to get some great results using multiple alternate short notes. It has to be recorded properly however, There also must be multiple speeds recorded (4/5) and there must be atleast 6-8 variations. When you get into these numbers, and all the extra inconsistancies you have to watch out for....its almost not worth it.

Again, if they recorded with a more ambience in VSL, then it would be much less noticable, and release triggers would cover things up and help get different speed notes, but thats not what VSL is about..

Also with solo instruments, you'd have to make sure that you had release time control, otherwise multiple alternates would jsut sound fake....and release time control can sound problematic if you dont have multiple speeds.

IMO this tools strength lies in two placess for me, slow string repetitions and fast brass repetitions. Nothing else I've ever tried sound more realistic with these. Faster string repetitions, definitly need reverb before they sound right, and I think some sort of release trigger samples would help this out, the same goes for slower brass repetitions.

That said, doing what herb has done, has given us real players inflections from note to note. No other library has done that, or will on at the scope VSL is doing. Once you begin to understand why they sample and program the way they do, you begin to understand the instruments and how they are played more.....which influences your writing if you ask me.

...nonetheless I was very glad, if you could figure out a "real-time"-approach with easy and fast to use alternating short-notes (with a speciific start, and explicit end-note). Maybe a great addition to what you already have for geeks like Ashif [;)]. To be honest I get into doing things like that and I will for sure do alot with the Perf-Reps, no doubt. Nevertheless there HAS to be another way for fast and easy setup, IMO. And to my ears the altrenating-note approach sounds pretty well, as far as I have been testing it by myself.


Roman

Herb - thanks for pointing me to the midi examples - and I did not think starting this thread would erupt into any thing except showing how stupid I can be [at times] for sure.

The answer to my problem was simply to actually play 16ths. I was thinking that I needed to play 8ths or quaters and let the repetition tool play the sub divisions. [8-)]

My 2 cents of critique on the results - fantastic.

I just need [at least] 4 more computers and all new D Drives....more motus..bigger mixer....