King,


as usual some interesting points..

You're right about technical limits.(ex : Legato instruments) Vsl are clearly pushing the borders and trying to anticipate what will be technically available. That's really good...

@Another User said:

...that rawk star drive in me to pick up the guitar and scream into a mic, drink lots of alcohol and get the chicks

I use to do that 10 years back (the guitar & mic stuff), It was such a fun experience we decided to do a 'remember' one shot gig last year.. Oh man this was like a 'huge' flash back on my twenties... eh eh eh ... just wonderfull...

The chick stuff, I also use to do 10 years back but I haven't found a good reason to quit yet... [[:|]]


regards
Charl

Oops.. lenth limit..
____________________________________________________

And finally the 'essence' of your post :

@Another User said:

...that rawk star drive in me to pick up the guitar and scream into a mic, drink lots of alcohol and get the chicks

I use to do that 10 years back (the guitar & mic stuff), It was such a fun experience we decided to do a 'remember' one shot gig last year.. Oh man this was like a 'huge' flash back on my twenties... eh eh eh ... just wonderfull...

The chick stuff, I also use to do 10 years back but I haven't found a good reason to quit yet... [[:|]]


regards
Charl

Some more 'playable' patches would be great when GS3 comes out... I woudl really appreciate that... or to get an art file from someone editing a super instrument in GSedit if nothing else...

I think the Guitar was the effort of only a couple people at VSL, and done "on the side". Not directly involved with the schedule, with regards to VSL's other instruments...


but anyway, thats not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is working towards a bigger concept, in terms of how VSL samples will be used. Do they spend time working on more instruments and working towards an ultimate playback solution, or do they work on programming techniques, developing "other" sound design routines, that they take time out of their schedule for options that dont fully really go with their bigger plan. (there is a fair amount of sound design going on behind the scenes I'm sure)

i thnk what I'm trying to say is I can understand their current mind set, with the time that it takes to develop some patches in giga, and the limitations currently available. Things may change with future sampler formats and options....not to mention you might see other options that they've been planning show up that will kill your need for "generic" patches.

I made patches that combine VSL with other libraries that are "more playable" to MY idea of playable, they definitely arent the best at realistically creating an orchestra, they are just "quick" patches to match with other quick patches I've made for other libs. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be cool to have "quick" patches, but man....these dont give me the best results. The best results are from switching articulations manually. I've also found that these "simple" patches (in all libs) tend to make me NOT use the rest of the library and make me "write for the patch". Still I use them, and move on because I "settle" on it,...mostly because I'm lazy, sometimes because of time (but again there's more things that will help with time than just "generic" patches), and also cuz I like that "fake" sound sometimes...with all the weird quirky stuff I've been doing for gigs.

now back to the point of the thread and connecting it with this post, more velocities, that doesn't automatically equal "more playable"

I think practice using VSL might be a better thing, than relying on "quick" patches. Practice leads to faster working.

About future stuff from other companies. Gary is pretty creative and has alot of talented people working for him on designs. He's also a big advocate of "keeping things simple, but giving the most options" now, (as am I in most libraries...just not VSL because its a broader concept). I'd expect the new stuff to be realyl cool. If its some of the older development concepts that I was involved in, then it will be very cool and unique stuff. If its newer stuff, then who knows, itmight be even more revolutionary.

I think a ombination of sampling, morphing and physical modeling would make for an amazing "virtual instrument"

however I also think that an off beat approach using a variation of granular synthesis/time manipulation could make for some really amazing results and still offer real-time playback.

Point is, theres so much out there in other peoples heads that you cant know it all, and exactly why things are done a certain way.

If it all starts to suck at some point, I'll make some patches, and you all can kiss my ring and buy me beer.

These are very interesting posts from King and Charl. Isn't one question to be asked about all of this: what is your goal?

Is it to have a playable musical instrument, like a piano, but with orchestral samples?

Or is it to realistically program on a computer a virtual orchestra?

In other words, these are two separate worlds: one is the creation of a "Super-Instrument" that is a real-time performance-oriented musical instrument but allows infinite orchestral timbers. The other is a composing-oriented, non real-time process like notating a score but is done by building up sounds instead of notes. Both of these enter into the process to some degree but you have to decide which you want to emphasize depending on your mindset and your talents.

I notice something similar to what King said in that I get lazy and use load-and-play patches because they allow one to concentrate more on the music. I also have a real inertia and sometimes aversion to finding the exact crescendo that will perfectly express part of one line in one instrument in one section of one cue - when there are a hundred others waiting to be done. This principle of laziness has a lot more influence than I think people are willing to admit. They like to talk about awesome systems and everything done perfectly with infinite precision, but don't actually use those in practice. It is also important to distinguish between the ultimate in technical possibilities, and what can actually be used in a practical way: the difference can be huge. EVen though I accept the idea of "programming" music, I keep on trying to create a more directly playable, instantly loadable Super-Instrument.

@Another User said:

Is it to have a playable musical instrument, like a piano, but with orchestral samples?

Or is it to realistically program on a computer a virtual orchestra?

I'd like both, please! And I believe it'll happen.

@William said:

I notice something similar to what King said in that I get lazy and use load-and-play patches because they allow one to concentrate more on the music. I also have a real inertia and sometimes aversion to finding the exact crescendo that will perfectly express part of one line in one instrument in one section of one cue - when there are a hundred others waiting to be done. This principle of laziness has a lot more influence than I think people are willing to admit. They like to talk about awesome systems and everything done perfectly with infinite precision, but don't actually use those in practice.

I think that´s a very wise observation. I experienced the same personally. Still I won´t never admit that! [[;)]]

I use the "_all" patches alot... I hope they will be expanded upon and made better once GS3 allows for it

Sometimes I'm working on some cues or tracks and I like to have everything at my fingertips.. I want to be totally focused on the music... Looking for articulations doesn't help me in those circumstances.

Now we all know that in reality writing music is always also reinventing the procedure of writing as well, but to cut things short, I could generalise my way of using the library like this:
When the main stuff is done, I will gradually dig deeper through the 'production' & will usually prioritize on parts that require the most 'fixing'.

Fixing can be indefinate but there's a point where you simply have to stop and deliver the music to who ever has to pick up on the job or just switch to another job or cue..

Personnally my experience has made me realise that the better my 'all' patches are, the less fixing I have to do afterwards... Again I'm being schematic here, but just to illustrate my point, here's an excellent real life example that happened this afternoon.
Earlier today I loaded a "basic all" solo viola (or violin or cello) I can't remember exactly...I'll check when I get back to work tomorrow. I was composing a quick snippet for a portion of a commercial.
Well, the patch had 2 velocity layers per articulation.. I played for 20 secs, clearly understood that 2 layers wasn't enough for me at that time. And I'm afraid I then turned to another library.... And found an 'all-round' patch that performed really well. The line was done in 3 min. & I didn't have to load any other patch or fix anything at all.

Frankly I would've preferred samples recorded on the silent stage but there was no way I wasn't gonna go the quickest way on this job..

I agree there may indeed be sometimes when the the fact you're using an 'all' patch is going to influence your musical idea... And it's a good idea to keep an eye on this phenomena.. I know I try to..
There's a kind of natural balance to find..

A good counter example is that I will sometimes load a very specific patch with a precise instrumental technique or something of the like even though I don't know exactly what I'm gonna play on it.
It's just my instinct that's bringing me to it ... It pops to my mind that I should use it at that point of my work. It'll sometimes work very well, sometimes not that well at all. [:D]

Also, King's comment on 'practicing' is a good one. I think with VSL the more you use it the faster you work. (Using it is also practicing). Maybe there WAS a VSL patch I missed this afternoon. I just went where it seemed the fastest easiest way .... 1 patch for writing + 3 patches for 'fixing' was not an option..


King Idiot :

@Another User said:

not to mention you might see other options that they've been planning show up that will kill your need for "generic" patches.

As I was saying, that's exactly what I hope (& trust) they'll do.. So why are we actually waisting our time on the subject of velocity layers...[[;)]]

Untill then, even though I agree more velocities doesn't 'necessarily' equate to more playability (michi's point on sequencing is a good one), in many cases I feel it actually really does provide more playability (By this I mean more depth in the reactivity of the samples thus more expression for an equal effort in the execution)...

Obviously I don't care much about the quality I'm only looking for a great 'return' and a minimum of mouse clicks.... ...... [6]

where jsut at a point where technology isnt there yet. I mean all the control in the world and options from jsut one patch jsut means you have to have 8 controllers to do it all in realtime, or have a MIDI instrument that pretty much makes it so that you might has well learn the real thing and record it.

I'm with you on gettin high return with less mouse clicks, believe me. With all the editing I do....BE freaking LEAVE me! Its worse with the actual software makers [;)]

What d'you mean you use software? who needs software...

You know how I get the best results with VSL don't you?...
I like to do it the real way :T.A.S.P. ( TRUE ANALOG SAMPLE PLAYBACK)

When I need some staccato tuba, for instance, I spin the corresponding DVD on my left hand little finger. I then read the tuba samples file with my right hand thumb nail (grown to this effect). - Aiming 'does' takes a bit of practice + a good knowledge of the DVD content.

What about 'playback'?

Good question.

Insert all your left-over fingers in mouth, and bite vigorously to insure proper proliferation of the wave form, from the finger bones to the teeth, and then from there to the jaw bone, ensuring maximum resonance of the samples in the whole of the cephalic cavity (from chin to forehead right through to the cervical vertebrae)..

Remember what John Lee Wonder said about the collection :

"In the right hands, those samples will make wonders"

Now is this groudbreaking or what? [8-)]


PS. Did I forget to mention how enjoyable and highly addictive it is to perform the 'Peter Framton like (talk-box)" effect on your favourite VSL timpani crescendo rolls?

My long-standing struggle with "basic" instruments is the way they're thinned out. They cut out entire velocities. We must go from yellow to red. We lose the orange. So when I'm writing in a hurry, paradoxically, I can't use basic instruments because the dynamics are so "either-or," and I haven't got time to tweak.

This is obviously more prep work to do, but if samples of all velocites were cherry-picked and then stretched just one key down, the dynamic spectrum would remain. It's still a compromised sound, of course, and I'd be reluctant to use it in a final track. But I'll suggest that a C3 root key sample stretched down to B2 is less of an audible difference than a leaping, snake-bite forte jumping out because the note velocity is one integer too high. This way, our basic instruments would be more playable and the RAM savings and palette availability would remain.

A classic example of this is what Dave Govett did in the reduced RAM versions of the GOS. Those are more than "basic" patches. They aspire to deliver the whole dynamic spectrum and save resources at the same time.

Pretty neat...

@Plowman said:

My long-standing struggle with "basic" instruments is the way they're thinned out. They cut out entire velocities.

Plowman,

Does that mean there's a difference between the stacc 1 + 2 of a basic instrument patch (say BASIC Vln 14) and the Stacc 1 + Stacc 2 that are singular instruments?

If so I didn't know (and would certainly like too.)

Dave Connor

I totally agree Plowman. I don't even use the basic instruments at all because of the bad velocity switching. I don't get how we're supposed to use programs like that. I guess we're supposed to choose which velocity we like, and then add programming like filters in order to adjust the sound the way we REALLY want it? It's a mystery to me...

Even some of the normal programs, like the solo trumpet, have bad velocity switching. I'm considering another brass library because of this problem.

I sincerely hope the Symphonic Cube fixes some of these problems.

Yes, Dave, there is a significant difference. VI-14 Stac from the Basic Instrument set has only two velocities, mf and ff. (the crossover being at 88 to 89). Stac 1 and 2 from the Short-Notes folder have four velocities: p, mf, f, and ff. I assume that other instruments are thinned out in a similar manner, though I haven't checked.

I understand the crossfading argument (that you'll get phasing and other artifacts when one sample is superimposed over another). But my ears prefer that issue to the unplayability of the cross-switching of significantly different dynamic samples. So some basic instruments become more usable when crossfading is used.

I recently purchased the SAM brass bundle. SAM unapologetically assigns samples to maybe two to four keys at a time. And the sounds are perfectly usable.

Tony, I agree, especially with the trumpet. I think it's partly due to the significant timbral difference between a soft and loud trumpet.

Plowman,

Wow, learn something new every day.

Are you using Gigastudio? If so won't the ability to load a lot more instruments in GS 3 solve a lot of this? Wouldn't loading the stac 1 + 2 combination patch and using the alternation tool or even key switching give you all the velocities conviently in one instrument. Or are you saying you would like a Basic patch that had all the articulations (pizz, cresc., etc.) that contained all the velocities in each instrument. Even so, won't the added dimensions in GS 3 allow for that as well?

Thanks

Dave

Hi Dave. I use both Gigastudio and EXS. My library is the First Edition Giga, but most of it is converted and the general trend is moving toward EXS. (though Giga's editor remains light years ahead of EXS'.)

More dimensions are something of a mixed bag relative to this discussion. "Basic instruments" should be clarified. They serve two functions.

The first is to conserve RAM by thinning out the instruments. Most of my comments above relate to this.

The second purpose specific to VSL is the ability to mix articulations live using the alternation tool. We can't alternate to other MIDI channels (Logic environment aside). So in that sense, we must have our articulations within one combination program on one channel using keyswitches.

It is soon apparent that more dimensions won't do much for the first purpose. As long as we are bumping our heads against a RAM ceiling of any kind, we will still be looking at those greedy four (or more) velocity programs and asking ourselves if they can be thinned out. More dimensions won't help.

But regarding the second purpose, the answer to your question is yes. More dimensions will most definately allow us to compile even more articulations -- multi-velocity articulations at that -- within one program for the purposes of alternating live.

"Wouldn't loading the stac 1 + 2 combination patch and using the alternation tool or even key switching give you all the velocities conviently in one instrument."

Perhaps you already this, but just to clarify, I think Stac 1 and 2 are different recordings of a staccato. If you mixed them for the sake of alternation, you still wouldn't get more velocities. You would get upbows and downbows though (if I'm remembering the patch correctly), which can be a great aid to realism.

Plowman,

Thanks for detailed response.

I have 1st ed as well and never realized that BASIC was a ram saving group of instruments! I don't think I've noticed because I've tended to use PerFLeg instruments far more than articulations.

Glad to be out of the dark on this.

As far as memory limitations GS 3 will aid in ram availabilty as well and help us all out a little.

Dave