Van Bebber is certainly a little confused: he does not understand the simple principle that samples must include irregularities of playing if they are to be natural-sounding. They are not defects, but deliberate inclusions of the living, breathing irregularities of actual musical performance.

I am tired of incompetent people criticizing something on this Forum because they do not understand how to use it.

Alex,

The orchestras I've sat among play as you say, widely! But listen to a top level professional orchestra -- a different story, usually. Recently I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra play Shostakovich with beautiful, pure intonation, and with a vibrato like crickets, that is, together. (They also played Bartok and illustrated why orchestras have trouble with some modern music, following just intonation to dead ends and pointless purity). But it doesn't take them any audible time to tune up a chord, not to mention just a note. And at a much lower level, when I listen to my daughters playing in unison with their violin teacher, the sound at its best is completely pure, they are thinking the same pitch and their fingers hit the string at just the right place, no adjustment necessary. That kind of mush-tune playing is more a symptom of the amateur orchestra with one rehearsal a week.

And as to substituting notes, sure, that is what I do.

Gugliemo,
I was referring to a professional orchestra. I'm not talking about a wide mushy sound, nor a 'once a week' rehearsal outfit.
The parameters i speak of are fine, not coarse, and my references are within a tight sphere pertaining only to a professional ensemble.
I guess it depends on how good our ears are, and what is our definition of excellence.


Regards,

Alex.

@William said:

Van Bebber is certainly a little confused: he does not understand the simple principle that samples must include irregularities of playing if they are to be natural-sounding. They are not defects, but deliberate inclusions of the living, breathing irregularities of actual musical performance.

I am tired of incompetent people criticizing something on this Forum because they do not understand how to use it.

William-
You have no way of knowing my competence or lack-thereof. This judgment on your part of my "competence" (in whatever discipline to which you refer) with no evidence shows your ignorance, not mine. And, to follow your reasoning, I guess VSL should leave in flubbed notes for brass instruments here and there, because it happens in real life... And we should have incorrect notes sampled in the woodwinds because it happens in real life right? What utterly flawed logic, William. Nice try.

Look, Gugliel has a valid point here that the sample stands out from others and should be fixed. You use this as an opportunity to attack someone's "competence," which you know nothing of. This is very telling of you as a person.

Flubbed notes ? Excuse me?

When did I refer to "flubbed notes"?

I am speaking of natural, authentic, musical expression.

There are NO FLUBBED NOTES in this library, to put it mildly. Brilliantly played, perfectly recorded notes, expertly programmed, yes - but flubbed? Hardly.

What I am referring to - and you missed - includes irregularities of attack, slight pitch shifts within the sample, attack timing, dynamics between samples, dynamics within samples, dynamic range within specific sample groups, timbral changes within individual as well as grouped samples, note length, audible keying, stereo imaging changes, and many other factors which you have never thought about. You assume all of these are...

"flubbed notes."

You have obviously never created samples. I have, and so have the people here who are the State of the Art, big-time, and make your protestations look - to put it bluntly - idiotic.

There is little point in discussing these matters with mentalities such as yours. Your mind is made up on the negative-dysfunctional side already. So if you wish to rage about this - go ahead. I enjoy observing barnyard antics for awhile, but get bored by it after a certain amount of repetition.

William-
First off, I have created my own samples - there you go assuming incorrectly and showing your ignorance (yet again). If I had recorded the A3 cello sample in question, I would have redone it because it sounds so out-of-place when compared to the other samples. I still don't understand your personal attacks on me, they are clearly uncalled-for. Any sane person reading the above posts would see that your attacks were clearly un-provoked, and frankly show a deep-seeded bitterness and insecurity. All I ask is that you don't assume things about me that you clearly don't know, and get to the issue of what is being talked about. Have you even listened to the sample in question? Have you played it repeatedly and compared it all others notes from that instrument? Surely, if you had (assuming, as I do, that you have some musical sense) you would see that this is a pitch and articulation variation that is not up to the world-class standards of the rest of the library. Now, Gugliel asks that VSL take a look at this and I agreed. There was and is no need to personally attack me or Gugliel.
That will be all from you. [:)]
thanks,
mvanbebber

Gugliemo,
Is it possible for you to post a sample of what you're trying to do?
Say 2 or 3 bars? Then at least the sample in question gets an airing in the context and tempo in which you're trying to use it, and we all get a better idea.
I just find it hard to believe that from the use you've described, that a rapid repeat of a sample designed to be played slowly and expressively is the way to go.
Because if that's the case, VSL are getting questioned and their standard queried in this very public forum for the sake of using a sample that's designed for something else, and i think it's fair that we who are commenting, and those who are interested in the products, get a chance to form an opinion based on reality, not conjecture.

Regards,

Alex.

@hermitage59 said:

Gugliemo,
Is it possible for you to post a sample of what you're trying to do?
Say 2 or 3 bars? Then at least the sample in question gets an airing in the context and tempo in which you're trying to use it, and we all get a better idea.
I just find it hard to believe that from the use you've described, that a rapid repeat of a sample designed to be played slowly and expressively is the way to go.
Because if that's the case, VSL are getting questioned and their standard queried in this very public forum for the sake of using a sample that's designed for something else, and i think it's fair that we who are commenting, and those who are interested in the products, get a chance to form an opinion based on reality, not conjecture.

Regards,

Alex.

Good point, I would hope that people would not comment unless they have heard this sample that Gugliel is referring to. A demo would help others to hear the inconsistency in the instrument - and would be much appreciated.

Hey, Alex -- thanks for staying calm! The repeated-note scenario was just to illustrate the front part of the sample, I don't use this patch in that way.

While I have time to forum-browse while waiting for things to load and save and reload and resave, making examples eats directly into work time, so I'll not take that time. Really, I was just playing a low A, forte, half note (crotchet) in moderate tempo, duplicated on two tracks, one with this patch and one with another patch. The note stuck out in the musical line, so I examined it more closely.

@gugliel said:

Here's one of those philosophical differences --- I DO want to make recordings like Jackie Dupre's, and Pablo Casal's, with tuning all over the place. But like her, and like him, I want the tuning to be expressive, not accidental! To do that it's necessary to have trustworthy samples, and to put your bow noise where it should be not where it accidentally falls. But this argument has been treated several times before here and elsewhere, and it's not that important, maybe.

If you want to make recordings like Jackie Dupre's, and Pablo Casal's, hire a good Cello player. Simple solution.