M-idiot

[JAK]

Yes that's me... I just go along with what's there forever without asking questions usually. Midi is great but I have a question that likely any one of you can answer.

I like to use velocity a great deal . Nowhere is it more effective than in GOS.

I have a more difficult time with modwheel exp although coming along.

What I would love is if I could use both at the same time which may seem a contradiction of sorts.

I would guess that midi cannot do this. Can anyone tell me why??
Is it like wishing my car can go forward and backwards at the same time?

The reason I wish this so much is simple. Most of my string writing is baroque/contrapuntal in nature. Therefore I may use a sharp attack for several notes and suddenly need to sustain a note but with a rising volume/expression.

To me this is the technique that can make GOS sound virtually indistinguishable from the real thing.

Recently we have seen remarkable things such as the plugin to enable aftertouch to work in tandem with the modwheel. Fantastic!

Can anything be done to enable both velocity and expression at the same time?

For all I know you will say ...yes dummy ...simply do this.. or
impossible sir as midi can do one thing at a time.... OR is it inherent in the libraries themselves , meaning yes it could be done if the programmer wished to make it so.

JAK

[DPDAN]

Hi JAK
I don't have an answer for you, but a question.... did you first use GPO before GOS, and if so, how was the learning transistion? Thanks, Dan

[wes37]

There might be a problem with switching between several samples in a short period, but I think you're onto something. It might be a limitation as to the number of controllers...ie the mod wheel can only be assigned to one task. Perhaps a separate footswitch for other manipulation. The problem would be using both at the same time....the computer can'd morph between samples, only trigger different ones.

Sorry, this was no help.

[JAK]

Hi JAK
I don't have an answer for you, but a question.... did you first use GPO before GOS, and if so, how was the learning transistion? Thanks, Dan


Yes I did use GPO first. Ithen ordered GOS Lite and am now going to order GOS full.

GPO is so well laid out everything is easy. As for GOS....it's all there ....it's just a matter of individual taste.

Since I work with real orchestras I find it extra difficult with samples and have very, very high standards.
Truly I am 99% there with GOS and GPO except for this one problem.

Only an expert can tell me if it involves different sets of samples to do what I want, namely to have velocity switching AND expression (volume/tone) at the same time which brings me back...is it a midi limitation ??

To me they are NOT mutually exclusive, that is to say one would want velocity control ostensibly for fast passages and expression control for slower, swelling passages.
As I stated, I myself frequently run a few fast notes followed immediately by a note that sustains and crescendos.

I know there are programming genius's here right in this forum but if it's simply beyonf midi to have two controls governing the samples at the same time, then I;m beat.

[Haydn]

You may want to check into the GPO library. The sustain+short string articulations use a combination of velocity for the attack with sustained strings using mod wheel for velocity. Plus they also use legato mode which is part of Kontakt instead of the overlayed samples for legato in GOS. The solo strings, brass and woodwinds in GPO also use this programming. GOS doesn't have these programming options as the GigaStudio 2.5 engine is not capable of this programming.

GOS II is under development which will use many of the programming features found in GPO but this will probably only be available for Kontakt at the beginning. No release date has been set for GOS II.

[DPDAN]

I know exactly what you mean JAK, I use Digital Performer and always have to make sure that when I play the parts in with the keyboard that all of the velocities are correct for that particular phrase. Many times I change the velocity of a particular note because it was hit too hard, so I take it way way down and it is still too loud. I feel that is a limitation in the sounds of GPO which is why I want to upgrade to GOS. I'm overly picky too, we just have to realize that GPO is similar to other libraries in that they all have a few weak points. I'm still impressed though.
Dan

[JAK]

You may want to check into the GPO library. The sustain+short string articulations use a combination of velocity for the attack with sustained strings using mod wheel for velocity. Plus they also use legato mode which is part of Kontakt instead of the overlayed samples for legato in GOS. The solo strings, brass and woodwinds in GPO also use this programming. GOS doesn't have these programming options as the GigaStudio 2.5 engine is not capable of this programming.

GOS II is under development which will use many of the programming features found in GPO but this will probably only be available for Kontakt at the beginning. No release date has been set for GOS II.


Yes I have tried that and it's a little better , ironically because the samples are not as clear as the GOS ones.
But again, it's not just velocity. I want to hit the note with whatever velocity and then sustain it and have the exp take over at that point.

It will work to draw in the volume on a graph in cubase but not the same as real expression a la mod wheel.

Since you mention GOS ll being initially for Kontakt maybe I better not order for Giga then and upgrade to Giga 3.0. better to get Kontakt.
Actually it's all so confusing maybe I better sit tight.

[thesoundsmith]

If I understand correctly, you'd like to be able to simultaneously use the nod wheel (CC#1) and velocity (a totally different piece of midi ifo0 to control volume- that or CC1 and CC7 or 11 - either would have the same problem. Mod whell is set at 0, you play a note with vel 99, then move the mod wheel. The volume setting would move from 99 to 1 in an instant, then continue to follow whichever piece of midi data came next-with CC1 plus mod wheel, after the keystrike (velocity data, mod wheel would be ther controller until the next note-on - would be very chaotic, but not as bad as CC1 and CC7 both - you cold get into a fight about which was last, 99, 1, 97 , 5, 90, 14, 98, 21, wtc...

What you would really be asking for, I think, is to have the mod wheel add its value to the velocity value, be it positive or negative. This would be possible, but requires quite a different programming spec for the synth.

From that perspective, an interesting idea...

[JAK]

What you would really be asking for, I think, is to have the mod wheel add its value to the velocity value, be it positive or negative. This would be possible, but requires quite a different programming spec for the synth.

From that perspective, an interesting idea...[/QUOTE]


Yes , I think that's it. Sometimes someone just has to say it in plain english.

Just like a week ago when we were after the aftertouch and presto.... suddenly there is a plugin to add aftertouch after the modwheel ..

This is very similar . The velocity strike comes first then the modwheel ( aftertouch carries on from that value up (usually) or down some.

It usually depends on whether Markleford see's these things and feels merciful or adventurous.

Actually it's like the plugin he created last week only now it would allow the velocity or initial strike to have an effect first.

Now that we have velocity controlling the attacks esp in cross layers the ultimate follow through would be to use the exp wheel or aftertouch to carry it on .

I am seriously wondering how the rest of you manage without this.

exp MW works fine for all slower phrases but what do you do when you need the fast attack PLUS the MW ?

I know there is always drawing in volume later but this is all about feel .

[dewdman42]

are you talking about GPO or GOS in your request for mod wheel changing the value relative to the initial key velocity? If its GOS, I can't comment. If its GPO, then remember that velocity is not supposed to control volume at all...only the attack curve of the sound.

I personally like the idea of using a spare CC# to control key velocity on a channel. Whatever the CC value is for that controller, make all notes on that channel have that velocity. so you can create a bit of consistency...its too easy to hit wildly different note velocities, depending on the midi controller.

Or better yet would be if the CC#n value represented a sort of baseline key velocity..then depending on how hard the key velocity was hit above/below 127.....the key velocity might be allowed to stray a little from the basline value. This is similar in concept to the other plugin that Markleford did that works with CC#1 and aftertouch. In this way, a stable CC can be used to specify the attack curve desired for a whole phrase...but some key velocity differences can be used to accent notes a little bit..(not the volume part of the accent..but the attack).

Actually as I sit here thinking about it, the ultimate intuitive thing for me would be something that combines the CC#1, aftertouch, velocity and CC#n into a single plugin...which would use CC#1 for a baseline volume, CC#n for a baseline attack, velocity to add accents to both the attack AND volume and aftertouch to add a bit of swell to any note that is being held that way.

[JAK]

Quote .....Actually as I sit here thinking about it, the ultimate intuitive thing for me would be something that combines the CC#1, aftertouch, velocity and CC#n into a single plugin...which would use CC#1 for a baseline volume, CC#n for a baseline attack, velocity to add accents to both the attack AND volume and aftertouch to add a bit of swell to any note that is being held that way........


Yup that is it exactly ! You have even gone one step further than I did. And you said it well ''ultimate intuitive' for that is what we might all like.

I use both GOS and GPO .

The GOS with it's multi layering is just outstanding for velocity as it's really just your touch that works so well. As for GPO....yes I would like much more variability in the attack portion ...translation ...MORE .. however that library cost $250 ...a miracle in itself.

A few times I have likened it to a violinist. Imagine if a violinist could attack anyway she likes with the bow but following that can press much harder with the bow to no avail !!!
Or the opposite: she can press with the bow top great effect but the attack never can change.

That is the limitation we have here unless I am sadly mistaken.

I want to strike the key harder or softer and hear the effect ( attack variability) then I want to bow harder on the key and hear the note get louder and more expressive ( modwheel or aftertouch)

Again..... GOS is great for the velocity cross layers but then I have no expression unless I draw volume in cubase ...
GPO doesn't have the layers so it is very limited in that sense for velocity touch depth on the apparent attack.

If you want that , then of course there are $$$$ sam horns etc but same thing. Great attack control then no cres possible.

I believe we are close here to something remarkable ...but how?

[dewdman42]

Yup that is it exactly ! You have even gone one step further than I did. And you said it well ''ultimate intuitive' for that is what we might all like.

I want to strike the key harder or softer and hear the effect ( attack variability) then I want to bow harder on the key and hear the note get louder and more expressive ( modwheel or aftertouch)

Again..... GOS is great for the velocity cross layers but then I have no expression unless I draw volume in cubase ...
GPO doesn't have the layers so it is very limited in that sense for velocity touch depth on the apparent attack.
Probably you will not ever get as much attack realism out of GPO due to the simple fact that GOS has many different articulation samples and GPO uses programming tricks on the same samples...messing with the envelopes and such. Its remarkable the way GPO works and I hope that future versions of GOS will have improved performance oriented features, while future versions of GPO might include a few more articulations...

Until then..we make do. I am in the process of learning my way around the MapleTools SDK, so perhaps this can be my first MapleTools plugin project. Of course, Markleford will probably have an MFX plugin out before tomorrow morning. ;-)