Letter to the Garritan Team - How GPO 4 could be 10 times better overnight...

[markhansavon]

Dear Team Garritan,

Please watch this video fully, to understand the point I am making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q7zBWa6MQM

Case in point: For GPO5 why not take those 'p' violin section, viola section, celli section, and bass section samples (From Garritan Strings V1 or V2) and punch them right in?

- It wouldn't be that hard to do.
- It wouldn't take up that much space (they could even be a lite version of Garritan Strings V2).

To me, this is the most important dynamic for strings. GPO4, right now, seems to just have mf. I feel that f and ff are achievable with an mf sample, but definitely not p and pp.

[Vladzakr]

--------EDITED-----------

I have erased my initial response, as now I find it quite offending.
Besides this it contained a disagreement with the above post, mainly in fields of presentation, and weak examples.

[FLWrd]

I think you're underestimating the economic value of these extra samples (in terms of work and size, but also competition with products of others as well as Garritan's own). I favor the idea of an extensible library (you buy mf in the standard package, and pay for f or p whenever you need them), but that's not everyone's cup of tea either.

Personally, I don't find the sound of the soft violins problematic. Properly handled, they still sound ok. The only thing I find difficult is modeling the mod wheel data at very low levels.

[BenNichols]

I am sorry for being rude.

I have no connection to the Garritan team etc. Have no bias towards his libs whatsoever, and have my own critic view about his activities in recent years, so I think I am the right person to say this:

Dear markhansavon, in light of your presentation, examples given, and expressions used, I have no doubt you "desperately need" some health counseling.

im intrigued as to how you come to such a conclusion!

[Haydn]

These extra samples will be part of GOS2. No idea though when it will be released.

Jim

[Raymond62]

Personally, I don't find the sound of the soft violins problematic. Properly handled, they still sound ok. The only thing I find difficult is modeling the mod wheel data at very low levels.

Can't you program your midi keyboard to modwheel data between values?
I can with my M-Audio Oxygen 25, so I can play it 'rough' and still get low values. May be an idea.

Raymond

[AlanPerkins]

I am sorry for being rude.

I have no connection to the Garritan team etc. Have no bias towards his libs whatsoever, and have my own critic view about his activities in recent years, so I think I am the right person to say this:

Dear markhansavon, in light of your presentation, examples given, and expressions used, I have no doubt you "desperately need" some health counseling.

You're not sorry for being rude.

There is no need for personal attacks here whether justified or not. By all means agree or disagree, but nothing qualifies you to launch personal attacks.

[Michael_uk]

.....

To me, this is the most important dynamic for strings. GPO4, right now, seems to just have mf. I feel that f and ff are achievable with an mf sample, but definitely not p and pp.
I must confess that I do find this rather strange. :confused:

Of course we can achieve piano and pianissimo with GPO4 and, in my experience, this can be done with ease.

In fact, there is a wealth of examples where the full dynamic range including from ppp to fff is demonstrated using the earliest version of GPO to the present latest version. These can be found on:

The 'Main Demo Page': http://www.garritan.com/demos.html
The 'Listening Room': http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=42
The six Christmas Albums: http://www.garritan.com/Xmas.html

As I mentioned earlier, achieving a 'p' and 'pp' with GPO4 couldn't be easier in my view. I threw together the following example using 'Section Violins' in minutes; in fact, it has taken me longer to write this reply than to prepare my example. ;)

In this sample, I start the clip very softly then a crescendo followed by a decrescendo and ending less sofltly.

GPO4 Dynamics Example (http://www.michaelsroom.co.uk/addons/gpo4_soft_crescendo_decrescendo.mp3)

If you would like any help with achieving dynamics using GPO4 please ask. :)

[AlanPerkins]

What a great constructive post Michael!

[sonata5920]

G’day Michael,

You said:

“In fact, there is a wealth of examples where the full dynamic range including from ppp to fff is demonstrated using the earliest version of GPO to the present latest version. These can be found on:

The 'Main Demo Page': http://www.garritan.com/demos.html (http://www.garritan.com/demos.html)
The 'Listening Room': http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/...splay.php?f=42 (http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
The six Christmas Albums: http://www.garritan.com/Xmas.html (http://www.garritan.com/Xmas.html) “

Can you be a bit more specific?

You said:

“In this sample, I start the clip very softly then a crescendo followed by a decrescendo and ending less sofltly.”

What I hear is just a change in volume with a lot of reverb. I think markhansavon talks about true dynamics as per appropriate sampling.


Herbert

[swinkler]

I have to say I don't get it. In fact for my ears I think the strings sound better at softer dynamics than loud.

markhansavon, maybe you think the samples are layers?

Steve Winkler

[Michael_uk]

What a great constructive post Michael!
Hello Alan,

Thank you for your kind comment. It's much appreciated. :)

[pokeefe]

... GPO4, right now, seems to just have mf. I feel that f and ff are achievable with an mf sample, but definitely not p and pp.

I'm probably missing something here. Obviously the volume can be varied across the dynamic range. Are you saying that the timbre is unrealistic at the soft end because it is really the timbre of mf?

I have no idea how sample libraries and their associated players work, but I guess they could have samples for a given note at various dynamic levels and move among the samples (with blending) as the requested volume changes. Maybe that is already done by GPO4 + Aria . If not, you are suggesting increasing the size of the sample library by some factor dependent on the number of dynamic levels samples, increasing the time & cost of collecting the samples, adding logic for blending the samples (which is probably different logic as you move across the dynamic range), etc.

That sounds very expensive to me unless GPO already works that way.

Pat

[Haydn]

GPO4 is only one sample layer for the strings. GPO will probably continue to be programmed as it is now. The main idea for GPO was to have a library that will load into memory of most computers. A computer with 2 GB of RAM should be able to load a full modern symphony orchestra in memory. GPO is a $149 library that almost any musician can afford to get started.

Once you start adding more velocity layers, then you start getting into additional costs in both the library and by needing a more powerful computer. As I mentioned in an earlier post, GOS2 will be an update to the original Garritan Orchestral Strings library. It will have the extra layers so patches can have cross fading between the different layers. This was part of the original GOS programming. It will also include quite a few more articulations.

Jim

[rbowser-]

Well, markhansavon, you've gotten some very informative replies, especially from Michael and Haydn. I hope you have a better understanding now. GPO will never feature the layering you're asking for, the timbral changes in it are accomplished with filtering. The larger GOS, which was a much more expensive program when it was released, features more samples and layers like your hoping for in this modestly priced library.

Most of us find the levels possible, including "p" with the strings, to work better than fine in our projects. We're busy making music instead of going into a big thrashing fit about how we would prefer things to be programmed.

I think your You Tube video is offensive because it's based on a lack of understanding GPO. But I also find the amusing since what you set out to demonstrate in it - Isn't demonstrated.

Hope you settle down to having more fun with GPO than whiling away your time contemplating how you feel it should be programmed.

Randy B.

[DPDAN]

I think markhansavon talks about true dynamics as per appropriate sampling

I agree with Herbert,...
I believe markhansavon wants more layers instead of the false impression of just lowering the volume and applying some EQ as the mod wheel is moved from it's lowest position to full.

Ironically, after listening to his Youtube video, he already has a sample library with these softer samples.

GPO can not do everything, it was never designed to be a one size fits all package. Even very expensive libraries by VSL and other library developers almost always have limitations with the samples that are included in any one given package.

GPO IS KILLER for the price.
Dan

[RichR]

DPDan nailed it when he said:



GPO IS KILLER for the price.

Check out the prices of the other libraries and you will definitely see, for the price you can get a really great sound and you will still have an arm and a leg afterwards. :)

Short of hiring a professional orchestra that is! ~|

[marce]

GPO was killer for the price when it came out. Certainly it still is a good thing for the price, but market has lowered prices, so, if it want still be a good value, i believe it need to add more content, to be still competitive. Users will apreciate it also.

[qccowboy]

there are no libraries anywhere on the market right now with a price comparable in any way to that of GPO.

while prices on other libraries may have gone down, they are still far more expensive than anything offered my Garritan, generally more than twice as expensive for a complete orchestral library.

[Jeff Hurchalla]

I don't feel like it's appropriate to be dismissive of markhansavon or his post. Unless I missed something, it seemed to be made in good spirit, and also reasonable to want an even more accurate ppp timbre than what GPO currently does for strings. As others pointed out, there's good reason why GPO works the way it does now, but future versions are for constant improvement, and feedback helps to make that happen. Having people that want to make suggestions is great, and almost anything is possible for future releases.
Thanks for the feature request.

[rbowser-]

Hi, Jeff - You're admirably tolerant of the way markhansavon approached his comment and feature request.I'm less tolerant because while his question/point is not unreasonable, since it's based on a lack of knowledge about GPO, I find it very inappropriate for him to have published his comment so loudly and negatively not only here at Gary's own Forum, but in a very public way at You Tube. The impression is that he knows what he's talking about, and the result, to me, is insulting. I feel his thread shouldn't remain on this Forum and that his You Tube video should be deleted. If I had a magic wand to do both those things, I would use it.

Lack of knowledge is totally forgivable, I display a lack of knowledge in some area probably every day. But I don't make the mistake of broadcasting my ignorance in a way that's potentially misleading to others who are equally ill-informed and are looking for information.

Hats off to you, Jeff - Like I said, your tolerance is admirable, but I feel you are tolerating something detrimental to Garritan.

Randy B.

[Michael_uk]

Hi, Jeff - You're admirably tolerant of the way markhansavon approached his comment and feature request.I'm less tolerant because while his question/point is not unreasonable, since it's based on a lack of knowledge about GPO, I find it very inappropriate for him to have published his comment so loudly and negatively not only here at Gary's own Forum, but in a very public way at You Tube. The impression is that he knows what he's talking about, and the result, to me, is insulting. I feel his thread shouldn't remain on this Forum and that his You Tube video should be deleted. If I had a magic wand to do both those things, I would use it.

Lack of knowledge is totally forgivable, I display a lack of knowledge in some area probably every day. But I don't make the mistake of broadcasting my ignorance in a way that's potentially misleading to others who are equally ill-informed and are looking for information.

Hats off to you, Jeff - Like I said, your tolerance is admirable, but I feel you are tolerating something detrimental to Garritan.

Randy B.
In full agreement with Randy.

I'm particularly concerned about the video publication. This is totally inappropriate and misleading in respect of Gary's stated aims and intentions for GPO.

Of course, there is nothing we can do about 'You Tube', this is in the hands of markhansavon ... by which I mean whether he leaves it up or removes it.

[robh]

I'm with Jeff here. I didn't see anything wrong with markhansavon's post. Did he say "GPO sucks because it doesn't have mp or p samples"? No. He said, "this is how you could make it better." To me, that makes all the difference.

And he's right. It would make GPO better.

Rob

[rbowser-]

Well - markhansavon's post is clearly controversial, and we each have our own reactions to it.

I just can't see his You Tube post as anything but inappropriate and negative, because he Is basically saying "GPO sucks because..." and I can't endorse that.

GPO would have to become an entirely different library for it to have the kind of multi-layers he's talking about, and read "different" to mean one in a higher price range. Mark is ill-informed if he thinks it calls for just sticking more samples into the pool, and it's his misguided complaint which to me makes his You Tube video bogus and as bad as a purposely troll-like slam planted by someone with the intent of doing Garritan damage.

IMHO.

Randy

[LFO]

Gotta say I agree with Rob and Jeff on this.

Guys, the overly defensive responses are more detrimental to the PR of Garritan products than the video!

Lets not call people ignorant because they might not understand the intricacies of how GPO is created. I bet 75% of GPO users have no idea that there is only one sample that is manipulated to create a range of dynamics. The OP made a suggestion on how to improve GPO in a way that he thought was constructive and describing what he thought the way it could be solved. For this he is ignorant, should not be tolerated and his videos removed? Really?

The right response is contained amid all the shrapnel in the previous posts. `GPO is not a deep dive library like GOS and other libraries. There are limitations to the amount of samples that are used, hence there are limitations to what quality and range of sound we can produce with the library. GPO is a great tool, especially given its price point. If you would like the quality associated with multi-layered samples you should look forward to larger, more expensive libraries such as Garritan Orchestral Strings 2 when it is released.'

I've always been shocked to hear users on other forums that have a low opinion of our little community. They say we are overly defensive and have a Garritan-can-do-no-wrong attitude. I've provided an alternative view in response, but we all know how much influence that had. The point is, responses like those in this thread only add fuel to that fire. Who wants that?

If I were the OP, I would probably never come back to this forum again. That is not what this forum is all about.

-Kevin

[rbowser-]

I see. Well thanks for that, Kevin. In other words, we're not supposed to voice our opinion unless it's a cherry, agreeable one? Between the lines, that's what you're saying, and I find that unfortunate. Strange situation, for GPO users to be criticized for saying something in the defense of GPO while an ill-informed newcomer who is broadcasting negatively and loudly in You Tube is patted on the back.

I have no opinion about markhansavon as a person. I have the impression he takes his music seriously. I just don't care for his behavior and am amazed anyone here can endorse the way he's gone about expressing his opinion.

Randy

[qccowboy]

I just listened/viewed the OP's YooToob presentation.
I found it rather confused and difficult to understand, with references to strings playing p and garritan strings playing p with no explanation regarding which libraries were actually being used.

In response to the OP: yes, of course, if the good folks at Garritan decided to add more samples to the string section, it would be wonderful.. and it would more than likely augment the price beyond the $150 you mention in your video.

I'm not sure, though: what makes you think that adding new sample layers won't affect the COST of GPO?

While we're at it, why doesn't VSL simply reduce the cost of their library to match that of GPO?

[pokeefe]

I think part of the problem is the YouTube clip. A simple posting on the forum would probably not have provoked the strong negative reaction. Also, "10 times better" and "overnight" in the subject were unfortunate choices.

But if there is an actual problem with violin timbre at low volume, maybe something that might help make GPO a little bit better in some reasonable time frame would be another set of violin samples - a low volume set.

There would be nothing automatic in using them; there would have to be a keyswitch or an instrument change. But that might help people that are truly dissatisfied with the current sound. (I'm not sure it would be worth the effort and expense, but I don't have very good hearing.)

Pat

[robh]

I see. Well thanks for that, Kevin. In other words, we're not supposed to voice our opinion unless it's a cherry, agreeable one? Between the lines, that's what you're saying, and I find that unfortunate. Strange situation, for GPO users to be criticized for saying something in the defense of GPO while an ill-informed newcomer who is broadcasting negatively and loudly in You Tube is patted on the back.

I have no opinion about markhansavon as a person. I have the impression he takes his music seriously. I just don't care for his behavior and am amazed anyone here can endorse the way he's gone about expressing his opinion.

RandyMaybe the best thing is to not read between the lines - for anybody.

Rob

[LFO]

I see. Well thanks for that, Kevin. In other words, we're not supposed to voice our opinion unless it's a cherry, agreeable one? Between the lines, that's what you're saying, and I find that unfortunate. Strange situation, for GPO users to be criticized for saying something in the defense of GPO while an ill-informed newcomer who is broadcasting negatively and loudly in You Tube is patted on the back.

I have no opinion about markhansavon as a person. I have the impression he takes his music seriously. I just don't care for his behavior and am amazed anyone here can endorse the way he's gone about expressing his opinion.

Randy

Randy, you of all people on this forum should know that I have absolutely no issue voicing an opinion that is not agreeable. Saying that is so pointless and so far from the truth that I am surprised you would even say it.

Of course the video is uninformed. Anyone who uses `change' and `overnight' in regards to software obviously has no experience in the field. He also does not understand how GPO is built and therefore is uninformed with that as well.

Perhaps we have different ideas on the word `ignorant'. To me, it is a very negative term. A term used to attack a person in a very demeaning way. So, maybe from your point of view it is not that negative.

Hence, in my mind to call him out and call him ignorant is not playing ball fair. You accuse him of `basically saying GPO sucks'. But he doesn't. In fact, all he does is state an opinion that the product would be 10 times better if they took his suggestion. Is that an overstatement? In our opinion it is, but not to him. He was not malicious nor negative nor mean spirited in any way. If anything he is only a bit overzealous with his words. I mean damn, spend some time seeing what many people post about products on forums and on You Tube. They can be vicious, hateful, vindictive, and foul in their tirades. (And mis-informed also.) His video is hardly a `troll-like slam planted by someone with the intent of doing Garritan damage'. If the OP had done that I could see everyone being upset. But he hasn't. It is a poorly structured video with a bit of exaggerated text that has been viewed 129 times. (Probably the majority who came from this forum!)

I think it is better to not read between the lines, but spend time understanding what is actually written. I think you are seeing a great deal that was not intended. If I were a developer and this was the worst video anyone ever put out about my product I would do a Snoopy dance! The OP is not trying to destroy Garritan products. He would just like something that we know is not practical. He is not ignorant, he just didn't know any better.

Randy, you are a good guy and I was not intending to single you out on my original post, but I think you felt I was. My intent was to just get everyone to chill and give the OP a break. I know you are passionate about Garritan software, so am I. But we really do a disservice to Gary when we go into overboard defensive mode. It really does hurt the credibility of the forum. I know this for a fact and I think it is the pits.

Like I said before, the OP will either be hesitant to come back or never will come back and that is a shame. What if the reactions on this thread caused him to never purchase another Garritan product? Would we be happy with this thread then?

-Kevin

[rbowser-]

Here's more from markhansavon. Also at You Tube from this month, March, he's used Garritan Personal Lite, yet implies that it's the full GPO. Here's what he says:

"A test of Garritans Personal Orchestra in action. It isn't perfect...hmmm...maybe this will help people out even more with deciding whether or not personal orchestra is right for them?"

If you want to give him more hits at You Tube, seek the video out.

You guys have been naively blind to what his agenda is.

Randy - standing by every post of mine on this thread.

[markhansavon]

I don't mean to offend anyone here.

How many people, though, have tried string samples with more dynamics?

You know how satisfying it would be to push that mod wheel down in Garritan's and hear a softer dynamic (You can almost hear the rosin scrape across the bow)? It definitely can't be achieved by combining solo string samples to an ensemble.

Garritan's Personal Orchestra is already at a blowout price at $150, but just with the addition of a bit of simple string technique it would, at least to my ears, match up to $1000 orchestral libraries.

If I personally was the creator, I would add Spiccato, Vibrato and crossfading softer dynamic samples into the mix.

I know all of this will be in GOS v2, but with the addition of sam brass already, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to add in.

Secondly, for Garritan, I haven't factored in how hard this would be, as I've always assumed that the mf samples that are used for the string sections are from GOS v1.

[rbowser-]

Hello, Mark

While you're here, perhaps you could explain why at You Tube you say you're using Garritan Pocket Orchestra, or GPO Lite, but give the impression it's the full GPO library.

More importantly, perhaps you could explain the obviously sarcastic text I quoted above from your other You Tube video which seems to have the purpose of discouraging people from trying GPO.

I would enjoy hearing from you on those topics.

Randy

[markhansavon]

I give the impression that it's the full GPO library as I do own GPO v1 and v2 in which, by no means, I could ever get to sound like a real orchestra as I didn't have the unconventional midi orchestration technique I use now.

It uses the same 1 velocity layer samples for the strings. I have never heard a result that is any better than I have done with the Lite version in more recent times. (Though I'm not that great to begin with)

Second, I meant to be humble [and helpful], not sarcastic.

[rbowser-]

Thank you for the reply, Mark.

Since it's the full GPO you're using in that vid, perhaps you should change the text which says it's "GPO Lite" to avoid confusion.

""A test of Garritans Personal Orchestra in action. It isn't perfect...hmmm...maybe this will help people out even more with deciding whether or not personal orchestra is right for them?"

I beg your pardon, but I doubt the sincerity of your reply that this was meant to be "humble." I can't imagine anyone interpreting it that way.

You made your points with the original post and your You Tube videos. And I've made mine.

Randy

[markhansavon]

I meant for

"help people out"

to come out as humble. Also, I'm saying

"It isn't perfect"

I'm saying that I am not that great myself, which I mean to come out as humble. Also, I compliment the GPO strings in the video saying:

"These strings are great! Awesome actually!"

I've tried my best to come out as humble, as I've spoken from my heart. I feel that the GPO strings are good, and that's why the word "Awesome" comes out. I don't have to choose it, the words form themselves. I love Garritan.

[rbowser-]

Nobody, in a state of actual humility would presume that producing a You Tube video would be of some sort of help to others in deciding if they should try GPO. Why should anyone base their decision on what you're presenting? Only an egomaniac would think that.

"...I love Garritan..."

Great, so edit your video's text to reflect that. I've never seen someone use "Hmmmmmmmm" in a post online without meaning to be sarcastic.

The intent in your You Tube text is clear and obvious - You're intimating that people shouldn't try GPO out. It's a real bore that you pretend otherwise.

"...I have never heard a result that is any better than I have done..."

Then I suggest you listen to the GPO demos at the main Garritan site. There are many excellent recordings there which aren't marred by the thing that bugs you so much.

By the way, I enjoy the music in your videos, crappy string samples and all. :p

Randy

[markhansavon]

If you don't mind, I'd like to add one more thing, on the subject of more string samples:

The Orkester Library for Reason which is used, uses:

16 samples for Violins in 'p' - 500KB Each = 8MB
11 samples for Violas in 'p' - 200KB Each = 2MB

All in all I'd say 100MB would add a lot more to the strings.

Most likely Spiccato up and down round robin is even possible.


In response, I have listened to all of the demos on the main site and I have owned the East West Gold Orchestra at one point (Which I didn't like, as everything is saturated in reverb). I prefer Reason as I have more control, where as other samplers take up more resources.

I will not stand my ground on the points that you make, but if you feel negative emotion towards me, it is negative emotion felt toward someone that humbly tries to convey at all times what they feel from their heart.

[LFO]

Lol Randy! Go ahead and rage against the machine then. ;)

-Kevin

[LFO]

If you don't mind, I'd like to add one more thing, on the subject of more string samples:

The Orkester Library for Reason which is used, uses:

16 samples for Violins in 'p' - 500KB Each = 8MB
11 samples for Violas in 'p' - 200KB Each = 2MB

All in all I'd say 100MB would add a lot more to the strings.

Most likely Spiccato up and down round robin is even possible.


In response, I have listened to all of the demos on the main site and I have owned the East West Gold Orchestra at one point (Which I didn't like, as everything is saturated in reverb). I prefer Reason as I have more control, where as other samplers take up more resources.

I will not stand my ground on the points that you make, but if you feel negative emotion towards me, it is negative emotion felt toward someone that humbly tries to convey at all times what they feel from their heart.

Mark, you have wine taste on a beer budget. There is a reason for separate product lines and they at least currently and for the foreseeable future will not meet your expectations. Adding to a sample library is neither a simple nor inexpensive process; you have oversimplified what it would take to add piano dynamics to GPO.

The best way to deal with that is to adjust requirements to what products currently offer and then purchase one of them.

I think you should examine DAWs a little more closely. Reason provides much less control for sample libraries than the likes of Cubase, Logic, etc. Reaper is a great alternative and the resource requirements for the program are less than Reason.

I'm not sure how you could have `owned' EWQL Orchestra Gold. Once purchase the license is non transferable. In other words, once you *buy* it, it is yours for life. It is a bit of a costly investment to not know beforehand that the samples include a good amount of reverb. Odd...

-Kevin

[Michael_uk]

.....

I will not stand my ground on the points that you make, but if you feel negative emotion towards me, it is negative emotion felt toward someone that humbly tries to convey at all times what they feel from their heart.
Mark,

It is not a question of negative emotion towards you as a person but towards some of your words and actions.

You have shown a lack of understanding of GPO and what Gary set out to achieve with this product. Also, as Kevin said in his last post, you have underestimated what is involved in adding to and re-defining this software, not to mention the potential added purchase costs and computer specifications.

However, and I feel to be significant, is Randy's discovery that you used Pocket GPO or GPO Lite in your video yet implied that it is the full GPO. You were invited, politely, to correct this and, it seems, you have declined.

You claim to be humble in your presentation, you claim to love Garritan, you claim to have spoken from the heart yet you decline to clarify.

Mark, actions speak louder than words. So, I repeat, please do not take this as 'negative emotions' towards you as a person but rather towards the things you are saying and your actions, or lack of them.

This can be put right so easily and your failure to do so is creating an air of a dubious agenda and doubtful sincerity to many of us here.

I really do hope that you reconsider. :)

[Haydn]

It would take up quite a bit more space to add more layers to GPO. Since each instrument is chromatically sampled, each layer has to have every note. The Reason one you mention is not chromatically sampled. There is more than one layer to the many of the patches in GPO. You also have the legato layers which have to be programmed for when CC64 is applied. So it's not as easy as you mention to just add another layer.

Jim

[sonata5920]

G’day,

This thread has become counterproductive and embarrassing. Could some forum members please stop beating up and mugging markhansavon. Singing the “Song of Praise to Garritan” is not a way to help but makes people question motives. To be critical is to be constructive. I cannot see any ill intent in what markhansavon says.

I agree with Rob Jeff and Kevin. Kevin said:

“Guys, the overly defensive responses are more detrimental to the PR of Garritan products than the video!”

Many more people read this forum, than just the few of us who participate from time to time.

I do not think using links to YouTube is a good idea. YouTube continuously infringes on copyrights. It should not be tolerated and may have legal consequences. For this reason, Steinberg does not permit YouTube links on its forum.

Happy Easter

Herbert

[Tom Hopkins]

Markhansavon,

Gary brought this thread to my attention so, as designer/programmer of GPO (and most of the other Garritan libraries,) I thought I'd make a few measured comments. GPO was designed with a completely different set of goals than the original GOS, beyond the obvious difference of GOS being confined to section strings and GPO addressing strings, woodwinds, brass, and percussion plus a few sundry extras.

The first point to make clear: The development of any library is a balancing act of elements – product scope, features, intended procedures of usage, size, minimum computer demands, range of the anticipated users' needs and resources, price point, etc. GOS was an expensive, cutting edge (for its time) library aimed at professional users with the latest equipment, upon which it made considerable demands. Some users even split library chores between multiple computers for just GOS. GPO, on the other hand, attempted (we feel quite successfully) to offer a very affordable, easy to use, “everyman” product that would allow users to simultaneously load and playback enough instruments to create even large and complex orchestrations on a single computer of modest specifications. That was a tall order when GPO was originally released and is still a bit tricky now. The key to understanding the full implications of this involves realizing the range of users that we anticipated for the product. Some of our users would come equipped with the latest machines and some would have much older machines with more limited resources. We needed the product to work for all of them with as few compromises in performance as we could manage. We evaluated each design issue and made decisions that represented the best compromise of features that accomplished our goals at a very low price point. That the choices were reasonable I think is confirmed by the remarkable results our talented users have consistently posted over the last few years.

Now, to the specifics of the issue in this thread: One of the steps taken to meet the design goals was to employ dynamic filtering in the strings (and other instruments) to approximate timbre changes with changes in volume. This carried with it important, even critical, advantages over additional dynamic layers of samples for a product with GPO's specific design goals. This involved such things as total sample size, RAM demand, programming complexity, development time, sample streaming demands, achieving smooth and continuous changes in timbre over the range of mod wheel travel, and myriad other things – each and every one of which had a tangible impact on our ability to bring an affordable, and we hoped profitable, product to market. Jim is correct in his post where he states that your suggestion of the addition of double the number of section string sustain samples plus its attendant programming changes would not be trivial to develop, institute, test, and deliver to a large existing user base. It would certainly not be without cost to us and the user. Does that rule it out as a possibility at some point? Not necessarily, but there are perhaps other paths to similar results. For one thing, some time ago we acquired the Gigastudio technology from Tascam and expect to apply many things from that technology to our products. One would be the advanced Giga filters that could vastly improve dynamic filtering for something like the GPO strings without negatively affecting our other design goals. Of course, we intend to continue to add features and instruments (as we have with the recent addition of the SAM brass) to improve the product and its value.

On the general subject of more advanced strings with deeper programming and a wider variety of string samples/techniques: That will be addressed in a more comprehensive and appropriate product when our updated GOS library is released in the future, but it will be a product that concentrates entirely on strings to achieve a different set of design goals. It will certainly compliment the present GPO library for those who desire expanded capabilities.

Finally, we always welcome suggestions from users concerning improvements in our existing product line. In fact, many past changes have been the result of feedback from our extremely savvy users. However, suggestions are best presented to us in detail directly. Youtube is inappropriate. By the way, I do give you points of a sort for your hyperbolic title to this thread! 10 times, huh?:)

Now, everyone go have a nice piece of dark chocolate, relax, and write some music.

Tom Hopkins
President/Director of Programming, Garritan Corp.

[Vladzakr]

You're not sorry for being rude.

There is no need for personal attacks here whether justified or not. By all means agree or disagree, but nothing qualifies you to launch personal attacks.

Alan

I agree. In fact, I`ve written the original reply pretty hastily, and forgot about it since. Now, once I`ve seen the thread, I feel terrible, as my initial intention was to aim ones credibility, rather being so personal.

I apologize, Mark, and fellow forum readers.


P.S. Nevertheless - blame my bad manners and harsh Ukranian blood :)