• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67

Topic: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

  1. #1

    Anyone else against the bundled sample playback concept?

    I run Digital Performer on a dual 1.25G Mac with maxxed RAM, separate data drive, and a separate Giga machine. My sequences used to look like a lot of MIDI data sent to modules or the Giga box or another for VSTi's. Now I may have a dozen Giga MIDI tracks, plus Atmosphere, Stylus, Trilogy, Silver, GPO, the B4 and a couple mac-based VSTi's as well.
    My processor usage and RAM usage has climbed to WAY over what it used to be (80-90 from 35%), and I get more frequent crashes, and less productivity.

    So many of you seem to like these CPU hogs; I just don't get it. I have seen comments that imply some folks are using a certain amount of Kompakt tracks, then rendering to audio before proceeding, but I don't want to work that way, I compose on the computer,not on paper, and amything is subject to change at any time till mastering.

    Does anybody else feel the way I do, that they were a LOT better off with Giga and 'old-school' sample libraries? Never mind what the developers prefer, this is MY business...
    Last edited by thesoundsmith; 09-27-2004 at 11:10 AM. Reason: typo in title
    It's all about the music - really. I keep telling myself that...

  2. #2

    Re: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

    I agree with you Soundsmith . Things are getting more complicated all the time in the sampler world . Since these products are made for users, they should respect their needs and try to make things as easy as possible . Creating a worldwide standard would be awesome . Something like GM but for soundformats .
    If a company wants to add a special articulation or Lfo , they can do it on the Standard Format , not make their own .

    I have been using Cakewalk Pro with soundfonts (soundblaster Live , Audigy) and external Roland stuff for the last seven years and don't move forward (?) because all the "The sequencer is here , the sound library is there , the reverb is somewhere else, plug-ins etcetc" connected up with virtual cables just seems like too much trouble and too much latency .

    Whenever i am working i have the sequencer open and the "load soundfont" window where i load my samples . If i need a Trombone i just go Ctrl+F , Trombone , the Trombone.sf2 comes up and i drag it in the thing . Ready to compose .
    Ofcourse... this old school Soundblaster stuff has polyphony limitations ; while i am composing i get cut-off notes , but at the end i render everything to .wav and the thing hits 500 Notes poly with -everything- playing -perfect-.

    I like it that way , it's simple ,safe and inspiring.

  3. #3

    Re: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

    Sorry, i dont agree.

    Times have changed - must adapt.

    Wasnt that long ago we had nothing but hardware modules and synths. Remember life before Gigastudio?

    If you're pegging the CPU then perhaps you should look into getting a new host computer. As technology advances, it gets more demanding.

    Maybe you should run more VSTi's on your PC boxes ??

  4. #4

    Re: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

    Did you buy RAM based libraries thinking it wouldn't use up more RAM?
    I don't understand your post. Buy Giga exclusive libraries or EXS_24 only and stream to your heart's content, if you want a less taxed computer. But even that will tax your CPU. Seems the nature of the beast these days.

    If you want all DFD you'd need to scrap all of the Spectrasonics stuff, the Silver and GOP.

    Or you could render all of those RAM based libraries using this tool

    And make them into EXS-24 instruments, whereby you could then stream them DFD.

    But then you'd lose the tweakability of their interfaces.

    Or you could go back to using external modules.

  5. #5

    Re: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

    i also don't agree.
    samples and techniques are evolving the same way like computer power.

    i can remember the time when my computer was barely able to open ONE renaissance rverb. today i can open like 10 without having problems.

    the same with samples, i was happy that my computer could run one sampler with some instruments in it, or at least the whole string section with having a pop or a crackle. that was times.

    so if you have a clean system and enough power the more you will also be able to use and the more you have the feeling that it's getting too much again and again and again ... and you need more ram, more gigs, more money etc. it will always be the same

    the sentence every sample composer is saying: "okay, now i upgraded my system, now i have everything i need, it should at least be okay for about 2 years!" - NONSENSE.

    There is never be an okay or enough for cpu power and space.

    I remember hearing Bill Gates saying: "There will NEVER be an application which is bigger than 647 KB" ... when i head that today i could lauh my azz of, because just window xp is using around 3 GB of disk space and 250MB Ram

  6. #6

    Re: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

    Quote Originally Posted by thesoundsmith
    IDoes anybody else feel the way I do, that they were a LOT better off with Giga and 'old-school' sample libraries? Never mind what the developers prefer, this is MY business...
    I agree with what you say. The only way to deal with it is to change how you work or add 3 or 4 PCs or upgrade hardware every 3 months. Then chain a bunch of USB ports for all the dongles as well.
    Processing power and drive space has become quite affordable but that doesn't mean a program has to take more than it's share of it.

    If a company is making money with CPU intensive sound modules, don't expect it to change. There isn't much buyer rebellion.

  7. #7

    Re: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

    I totally agree with the initial poster. I hate bundled sample players, as I feel it should be my right to use the samples as I wish within my own work. If I wish to put an acoustic bass through Kontakt Time Machine 2, then it should be afforded to me. This is what put me off Spectrasonics Trilogy - that and the high quality of the Scarbee and Lastlibs basses, just want a nice Upright (Larry Seyer?) and Fretless (Pure Basses maybe). As multisamples will never capture every nuance and possibility of the real thing, I would at least like the additional possibilities that an advanced sampler like Kontakt can provide. Otherwise it just seems like a pale imitation, second best to the real thing, when it could be so much more. It's no so bad with Kompakt libraries - at least I can load them into Kontakt... But I'd much rather have the raw waveforms alongside the program data (be it in .gig format or whatever).

    I make an exception for players which really add something to the Rompler concept such as BFD - the GUI really makes the job of panning and mixing the drums much easier, and it also does some positional processing etc.

    Just my standpoint.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Castle Rock, Colorado

    Re: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

    I don't agree that we were a lot better off with Giga and the "old school" sample libraries. Times change and the technology is moving forward.

    I had to literally pry the G4 out of my life to upgrade to G5. I am SO glad I did! The G5 is an incredibly stable and very powerful machine, running multiple instances of EXS & Kompakt, Spectrasonics Atmosphere and Trilogy and an array of software plugins and still staying under 35% CPU load. Instead of having 4 slave PCs I have have only one: a VisionDAW PC and am able to do a pretty large mockup between that and the G5.

    Frederick Russ
    Ezine: Sanctus Angelis Online
    "Music Technology News for Orchestral Productions"

  9. #9

    Re: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

    There's some kind of cycle going on, which fluctuates between cheaper memory and processing power. Right now, memory is cheaper than CPU. For that reason sample based synthesis is the better choice at the moment. Maybe in a few years it will be cheaper to have much processing power compared to RAM. In that case modular synthesis will become a more obvious choice. Until that time it's all Gigastudio for me.

  10. #10

    Re: Anyone else against the bundled sample payback concept?

    If we should go "back" to anything it should recording our own tracks and using samples less.
    Who cares what triggers the samples? VST samplers and Romplers are much more convienent and integrate into our host system better (lower latency can be achieved). Since not all libs. are being developed for giga anymore, why limit ourselves to one platform (and the limitations thereof). Things have never been easier and we`ve never had so many choices.. Rich

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts