I don't think there is any difference between the repetition in Giga or EXS. However, in EXS when you open up a performance instrument, the legato or repetition tool is automatically loaded with the program. You don't have to assign anything. As I understand it, this does not happen with the Giga performance set.
This was the main reason I went for the Performance set for EXS. I got the cube for Giga, and have imported across a large part of the library for certain situations. Also, with the repetitions, it's a lot easier IMHO to see the waveforms in EXS, and if you so desire, make custom patches by editing them.
I am surprised that a man of Mr Evans' calibre is still scratching his head over the repetition tool. I do not believe there are any hidden tricks....it is fairly straight forward, as has been described in various other posts. You are either tied to the specific repetition tempo (not generally very practical of course) or you simply trigger the first note of the various repetition recordings, and mess with the release time to tailor the note lengths to your liking and specific tempo. I think the concept of repetitions was great, however, in practicality it is not perfect, and I suspect once the VSL team had embarked on this road, it was too late to turn back. I mean, there's a hell of a lot of recording and editing in these things.
In my experiments with the string repetition instruments specifically, I have found the following results. Firstly, repetitions at a specific tempo do not always match up well enough to use simultaneously. Lets face it, the players are human, and I doubt whether they recorded all the various note repetitions by tracking to a master repetition. Anyhow, it is just not 'tight enough'. The answer therefore, is to use just the first notes of the repetitions, as I said above, therefore not repeating the exact same sample. This does not always lead to smooth results, (for example, the first repetition of the matrix must be switched to a value of '0' for some reason). However, with some fiddling about (again, the release value is crucial) you can create some very realistic repetition phrases. When you compare a phrase constructed in this manner with the same phrase using the cube instruments, the difference is stark. NO contest. Using the repetition tool in this manner can result in more realistic lines in general, whether repeating the same notes consecutively or not. The sound is richer than the cube IMO.
In summary, I believe, as I seem to remember the esteemed E.Evans writing in a thread many months ago, that what we really needed was lots of recordings of the same notes in various lengths, which would then switch in the matrix in the same fashion as they do now. The five note repetitions are very versatile in terms of tempo (utilising the release slider) however, once you get rid of the first one (which you have to do) this leaves you with only four different notes, and in a repeated pattern, you can start to hear this . Ten or fifteen would give a more natural effect. This, I think, would have been much more useful than spending hours recording for example nine repetitions down to one repetition for all the pitches (and at multiple dynamics I think) Ok, that's my two pennies worth!
Finally, in my recent thread 'Symphonic cube?' Mr Evans quite rightly stated that I have an English name, and that's why my question got answered, when others who had asked a similar question, weren't so lucky. Well you were quite right, I am an Englishman in New York, and if George Bush get's back in (which I fear) I may have to move back!
Best wishes, Andy
This was the main reason I went for the Performance set for EXS. I got the cube for Giga, and have imported across a large part of the library for certain situations. Also, with the repetitions, it's a lot easier IMHO to see the waveforms in EXS, and if you so desire, make custom patches by editing them.
I am surprised that a man of Mr Evans' calibre is still scratching his head over the repetition tool. I do not believe there are any hidden tricks....it is fairly straight forward, as has been described in various other posts. You are either tied to the specific repetition tempo (not generally very practical of course) or you simply trigger the first note of the various repetition recordings, and mess with the release time to tailor the note lengths to your liking and specific tempo. I think the concept of repetitions was great, however, in practicality it is not perfect, and I suspect once the VSL team had embarked on this road, it was too late to turn back. I mean, there's a hell of a lot of recording and editing in these things.
In my experiments with the string repetition instruments specifically, I have found the following results. Firstly, repetitions at a specific tempo do not always match up well enough to use simultaneously. Lets face it, the players are human, and I doubt whether they recorded all the various note repetitions by tracking to a master repetition. Anyhow, it is just not 'tight enough'. The answer therefore, is to use just the first notes of the repetitions, as I said above, therefore not repeating the exact same sample. This does not always lead to smooth results, (for example, the first repetition of the matrix must be switched to a value of '0' for some reason). However, with some fiddling about (again, the release value is crucial) you can create some very realistic repetition phrases. When you compare a phrase constructed in this manner with the same phrase using the cube instruments, the difference is stark. NO contest. Using the repetition tool in this manner can result in more realistic lines in general, whether repeating the same notes consecutively or not. The sound is richer than the cube IMO.
In summary, I believe, as I seem to remember the esteemed E.Evans writing in a thread many months ago, that what we really needed was lots of recordings of the same notes in various lengths, which would then switch in the matrix in the same fashion as they do now. The five note repetitions are very versatile in terms of tempo (utilising the release slider) however, once you get rid of the first one (which you have to do) this leaves you with only four different notes, and in a repeated pattern, you can start to hear this . Ten or fifteen would give a more natural effect. This, I think, would have been much more useful than spending hours recording for example nine repetitions down to one repetition for all the pitches (and at multiple dynamics I think) Ok, that's my two pennies worth!
Finally, in my recent thread 'Symphonic cube?' Mr Evans quite rightly stated that I have an English name, and that's why my question got answered, when others who had asked a similar question, weren't so lucky. Well you were quite right, I am an Englishman in New York, and if George Bush get's back in (which I fear) I may have to move back!
Best wishes, Andy
