William,

I absolutely understand where you're coming from in an ethical sense. But for me the ultimate goal would be to set up a score, write some music, and have it sound as though it was somehow magically performed and recorded by a professional ensemble or orchestra. However that's done is not really my concern. It seems to me that some sort of sample resynthesis technique will probablly wind up doing this before straight sample playback. I could be wrong. One of the major drawbacks of samples, in this regard, is the fact that they are "locked" in time, as I mentioned before. And my experience of this has been that on occasion I simply can't do what I want to do and still make it sound good. So I either deal with the sound being a little off, or I scrap the idea in favor of one that is more easily reproduced using samples. Neither are great alternatives, but the latter is probably worse. What I need is a technology that escapes these limitations.

Your point about the moog is a good one. But obviously there are a great many people out there who are wildly excited about the moog. Here, probably the majority of us are still more interested in the sounds of the orchestra, and of its instruments, than anything electronic, even though the eletronic instruments may produce some very interesting sounds. So it's not strictly about the sound. It's about the whole world of orchestral instruments, and the challenge of finding something new to say with them.

J.

I can see that from a practical point of view.

I remember reading a sci-fi book by the astronomer Fred Hoyle, about a composer in the future who did what was normal then - he took his written-out orchestral score, fed it into the side of a machine, and it played it perfectly. This "magical" quality is obviously what people want.

I like the fact that the notes in samples are actually played rather than synthesized, but the problem ultimately is that there is never enough of them, whether one is trying to find the ideal expression needed by a composition, or having each note played be an alternate sample. And this is even with the hundreds of thousands being recorded by the VSL. Ideally perhaps - to me - it would not be synthesis, but a fantastically enlarged sampler with a database of maybe twenty notes or articulations for every note or articulation, all arranged intelligently and automatically by the computer, so that nothing ever repeated, including long notes and legato transitions, and yet everything was an originally performed note. Unfortunately to truly capture absolutely everything an orchestra does in individual recordings would take probably several billion samples. So in your practical sense synthesis may be a necessary compromise in some music.

@Another User said:

I guess that means "the music irritated the hell out of me, but the performance was convincing"

Why would you assume that? I meant the exact opposite: the performance irritated the hell out of me but the music was convincing.

[:)]

Just kidding. I did like it. It reminds me of the percussion ensemble music I used to play in college. The only reason I side-stepped my opinion - not that I expect or even want anyone to give a $#!+ what my personal musical opinions are - is that I'm usually interested in more tightly structured music. And note that I didn't say "easier-listening," I said more structured.

That doesn't make your composition bad, either objectively or in my personal opinion. On the contrary.

***

William, I wasn't aware that I had a habit of hijacking threads to make my points. But in this case I think what I'm saying is very much to the point: the VL1 is a synthesizer that does attempt to imitate "real" instruments (that's not all it does, but it does do that).

Most of the emulations end up having the same effect as the real instrument but sounding off, i.e you're not going to fool a [insert instrument] player that this is really a [insert instrument]. However, it responds to the EWI (which is what I use to play it) like an acoustic instrument - only you can cheat by keeping it in tune automatically, etc.

The point is that it has the nuances and expressive control of an acoustic instrument, it's trying and coming very close to succeeding as an imitation in many instances, and by your standard this is vulgar.

And, as you've gathered, I disagree. Editing sampled performances together piece by piece is one of several great techniques; I say 'sall good.

I also don't agree that just because you're playing parts in real time means that you're merely noodling and/or creating non-[insert instrument] parts. Maybe you are, maybe you're not. What if you write the part first and then play it?

Besides, what's wrong with improvising as a way of composing? Bach did it! Michael Kamen sure did it, although what those guys did was composing in real time.

Anyway, my ideal orchestral instrument would be VSL with a performance interface that's more suited to real time playing. It's already quite playable (using keyswitches, volume-riding, and the Legato and Alternation tools), but as I've said too many times, this is where sampling has room to grow.

By the way, I'd be happy to explain the VL1 in more detail if anyone's interested. It's the best synthesizer ever created, in my opinion.

Overall.... Interesting....I remember too well when I got my hands on Stephen Kay's Korg KARMA Workstation.... fascinating.... However, did anyone invote Eric to join in here, I read that Dietz thinks he is a member here, so as far as I am concerned, by all means.....WELCOME and look forward to hear your thoughts....

Nay! He is a synner. His synful voice shall not be permitted in this, the Temple of Samples! Get thee to a Samplery, synner!

Someone mentioned that they prefer using samples because they are proper recordings rather than synthesised... don't you think the that real instruments themselves are synthesiszers? They - after all - make the sound. The samples are merely a recording of it. You could argue, therefore, that synful is 'closer' to the original than the sample.
There are also seems to be some snobbery on this forum about what is morally 'correct' Sod that! I want to use whatever tool is easier to use. I couldn't care less if this was achieved by my wiring up of my pet hampster to produce a realistic piccolo sound (other than the fact that that approach sounds a little complex for my liking!!)

Uhm - Paynterr, please be aware that we are on the pages of the Vienna Symphonic Library, so you will see a lot of people biased towards sampled instruments here, by definition. We don't have to be well-balanced, so plaese don't consider these opinions to be "snobbery".

All the best,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

I'm sorry, but I would never use waveforms that were re-synthesized of an electrified hampster. I prefer samples. The Sopranino Hampster (D flat Rodentophone) is a remarkably expressive sound and must be represented authentically.

@Dietz said:

Uhm - Paynterr, please be aware that we are on the pages of the Vienna Symphonic Library, so you will see a lot of people biased towards sampled instruments here, by definition. We don't have to be well-balanced, so plaese don't consider these opinions to be "snobbery".

All the best,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Good point. At this stage, I couldn't see using Synful as anything but a nice aid for Finale or whatever. I like its expressiveness though- especially being able to switch articulations simply by adjusting my technique at the keyboard while playing in a line. But sonically, its Bb clarinet isn't anywhere near as gorgeous as the VSL legato clarinet.

@William said:

I'm sorry, but I would never use waveforms that were re-synthesized of an electrified hampster. I prefer samples. The Sopranino Hampster (D flat Rodentophone) is a remarkably expressive sound and must be represented authentically.

[;)] Happy Gnaw Year!

Thank you paynter. I'm celebrating by wiring up one of my other favorite instruments - the Alto Gerbilhorn. Makes an excellent trio with two Rodentophones.

When is VSL ever going to sample these? Jeez! What ARE they waiting for? I am running out of feed!

@William said:

I like the fact that the notes in samples are actually played rather than synthesized, but the problem ultimately is that there is never enough of them, whether one is trying to find the ideal expression needed by a composition, or having each note played be an alternate sample. And this is even with the hundreds of thousands being recorded by the VSL.

I agree. At the moment I am rushing through a demo and having to compromise on the sound due to the time that it takes to piece together lots of little samples to make something work. In fact I'm not even using the VSL Timpani because of this. While it sounds great when it all works, I need to be able to play one note and (for example) the roll to continue until I take my finger off it, crescendo via a crossfade (modwheel) to a different velocity roll etc. With my "old" samples I can do this live, however I have not yet found a way to do this with VSL. However, surely this is a case where with some sort of synthisis (Performance Tool...!) crossfading to 3 second, 4 second (etc.) rolls could be done by whatever timestretching is done in (pause for spitting) Synful.

I think that some sort of hybrid will possibly be the next phase of sampling, although I certainly agree that the ultimate quality is based on the original sounds sampled.

Why am I typing when I should be working? [:O]ops:

DG

William:

I'm excited about this new technology/techniques, as it brings to our environment audio which once could only be done at professional studio's ($$$) and the hiring of orchestras (more $$$).

Now that there are options of samples & synths, you can achieve fantastic results from home/small studio at an affordable budget...

This gives 'The Little Guys' more possibilities for work and other achievements.

Unless you have thousands of dollars hiring an orchestra, then these libraries are certainly worth it (including synths).

For those that work, less expenses means more money in your pocket, so why not take advantage of Synths as well (If it achieves the results you're after) ?

Regards, Max.

For me, the main difference between a (good) sample and (even the best) sythesized sound is easy to define: The sample will always have this certain "built in" musicality --- an artistic consciousness that the player(s) and the producer condensed from the myriad of possibilities into this very recording. You would have to know the Do's and Dont's of _each_ instrument as thoroughly as the highly specialized players from the sampling-sessions to achieve a similar result from a synthesized source. It may look enticing, but in the end you're spoilt for choice.

/Dietz (with his private opinion)

Hey Dietz, have you ever tried a VL1? [:)]

It can't do what VSL can do. Most of the sounds it comes with - and it's very difficult to program - are way off. I can't think of any ensemble sounds it produces that are at all usable. Forget about the strings (some of them are nice, but they sound like something different). It only has one- or two-note polyphony.

But the sounds that do work, such as the muted trumpet, clarinet, harmonica, "chiffy" jazz flute...those sounds really do have the same effect as the real instrument when you use a wind or breath controller, and I have to say it's more expressive than playing samples. All the note-to-note transitions, subtle tonal nuances, etc. are there.

If you play the jazz flute really quietly, for example, you get fingers-on-pad sounds. Then as you gradually play harder, the instrument responds just like a flute, until you overblow and get the "chiff." All that isn't on/off/next layer please, the transitions are continuous. Each note sounds different. You can play notes in the same breath/bow, suddenly change timbre by blowing harder and softer, and so on. It knows if you suddenly blow hard or if you gradually breathe in.

In other words, it does everything a real instrument does. Of course you can easily produce uncharacteristic parts, but you really don't have to understand a tuba or flute in great depth to play tube- or flute-ish parts.

Obviously I'm not saying it's a replacement for VSL, because it's strictly a solo instrument and it does totally different things. But eleven years after its introduction, it's still beyond awesome. People are staggered by how real it sounds when I play it.

Hey Nick,

I was actually a huge admirer of the VL-1 when I was researching phymod stuff... I never got my hands on one, and I'd be pretty much stumped when it comes to getting all those specialized sound out of it, but I love the idea behind the technology. Also, probably the most realistic clarinet I've ever heard was done on a VL-1. So, I am a fan. The only problem is configuring all those subtle controllers in a way that would work reasonably well from score... not easy. Also, there's polyphony... I do wish someone could manage to bring phymod back to life, with some sort of interpretive front-end to help performance. I mean, all those little extended techniques I love so much can actually be produced on a phymod instrument, because you're actually duplicating the physical conditions required to produce them on the real thing! It is a very exciting technology... too bad it croaked! (Has anybody played around with Logic Pro's new phymod instrument?)

J.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

Hey Dietz, have you ever tried a VL1? [:)]
[...]

Yes, and I even programmed for it's little brother, the VL-70. Incredible technology. But I'm sure that you are completely aware of the fact that you actually have to develop new skills for each and every setting of this synth to _really_ master it - just as it were a new instrument of its own.

This is what I tried to communicate with my reply above: Good samples have this mastery "built in", so to speak.

... so many instruments, so little time ... [+o(]

All the best,

/Dietz

@Nick Batzdorf said:

But the sounds that do work, such as the muted trumpet, clarinet, harmonica, "chiffy" jazz flute...those sounds really do have the same effect as the real instrument when you use a wind or breath controller, and I have to say it's more expressive than playing samples. All the note-to-note transitions, subtle tonal nuances, etc. are there.

Not to hijack the thread, but what is a breath controller? I have read bits and pieces about it (regarding the DX7) but have no clear picture in my head of how one should be used and for what purpose. Someone, please enlighten me [*-)]

DG

@DG said:

Not to hijack the thread, but what is a breath controller? I have read bits and pieces about it (regarding the DX7) but have no clear picture in my head of how one should be used and for what purpose. Someone, please enlighten me [*-)]

DG

Recently there was a quite comprehensive thread about it. Just search this forum.

@paynterr said:

Well, I have to say that I am very impressed with what I've heard from synful and am considering using it instead of VSL performance/pro. Why? Not because I think it sounds quite as good yet... but because it is *SO* much easier to compose using.

That's a good point. I use various sample libraries in addition to VSL; the differences in sound are a matter of taste or preference ....but it's a lot more fun to get results quickly. And I think we all know that VSL, for all its beauty and realism, is not the fastest and most accessible of libraries. For things I want -or need- to do quickly, I don't always use VSL.

If someone could design an interface which would make choosing the appropriate VSL patches more intuitive, or even translating a written score into the right sounds....now that would be interesting.

Nigel