- all the samples of G6 pedal up have a slightly different attack from other notes but this could sound more real as it is probably due to the piano itself.
-all the samples 13 and 13s are sampled at 16 bit,48 khz
-all the samples 31 are 16 bit, 48 khz
-all the samples 127s are 24 bit 44.1 khz
-the release samples are 16 bit, 44.1 khz
-all the samples 39 have a strange continuos noise that sounds like an electrical interference or something like that.
also the samples 47 have this noise but not so strong.
-on the dvd i got i just can see eleven velocity layers and not 12) which are: 13,25,31,47,63,78,85,99,113,127. All the patches that came with the dvd and the ones i downloaded from the pmi website never use the layer 31 which infact sounds different when placed between the layers 25 and 39(this is mostly true for pedal up).
some of these problems could be due to the mastering of the dvd; it would helpful if someone could confirm these problems
can maybe someone confirm the following?
(by the way i'm using the pc kontakt version 24 bit)...
...some of these problems could be due to the mastering of the dvd; it would helpful if someone could confirm these problems
many thanks in advance,
i started going through the emperor samples a couple of months back - gave up after finding 50 with obvious glitches/poor starts. from middle C down an octave (pedal down and up), lower velocities, there are double strikes. middle C and up (pedal down), the start point are all over the place - play ascending chords, and half the notes in the upper octaves have a 1/4 second delay. the bottom 2 E's and F's (play a funk bassline) are delayed. and there are some exciting barn-door type noises. this is on the 24bit Kontakt version (mac). i would presume it's not the mastering of the DVD - the samples are intact, just dodgy.
it seems that the "Stancke computer system" enabled better basic samples, but that they weren't rigorously checked (the double hammers and delayed upper octaves are especially egregious).
wow, just checked the samples. i had noticed the 16 bit lower velocities before. Michiel eventually explained that he couldn't hear a difference between the 16 bit and 24 bit files, so we got 16 bit because that way everything would fit uncompressed onto one disk. begs the question as to why he sells a 24 bit version at all, if they sound the same. also intriguing that the PMI web pages have not been updated to include this information (still says "24 bit" and "12 layers".) but i hadn't spotted that the 127s samples were 44.1 - bizarre. not sure which ones are the release samples, so can't confirm that.
i noticed those problems because i started adjusting the release sample start position in kontakt: to do that i also had to edit ALL the samples in a wave editor to apply a short fade in so to have the freedom to place the sample start where i wanted.
all that said i anyway must say that the sound of this piano is marvellous; it's just a pity to meet this problems
Michiel is supposed to be working on this, but no word yet. Hopefully he'll fix the stuff on your list too. I agree with juliannicholl's suspicion that possibly a little bit too much trust was given to the Stancke Computer system.
As promised we are working on updates for the EMPEROR. In fact I was working on improved patches for the Kontakt Emperor today and examined your list of BAD SAMPLES.
Now there is one thing that I would like to focus on. You list mentions bad samples. Period. I don’t really like this kind of topic header, since it tends to work very sticky for most readers in this forum. They see EMPEROR=BAD SAMPLES. That simply does not reflect the way most users appreciate this product. I agree there remain some small issues that need to be solved. But most of our users find the EMPEROR an extremely responsive and great sampled piano. The general Emperor=BAD topic is a bit too short-sighted.
It seems obvious to me you examined the samples in isolation. Exposing them at a volume one would normally never hear them.
The very first sample in your list for example (13 A0) is programmed in the main patch so that you can hardly hear anything at all when playing that note since it only responds to velocity values 1 trough 7. Most master keyboards don’t even send out midi velocity below 10 at all. From velocity value 8 upwards you get the next sample (25 A0). So when playing at velocity values below 7, in the programs we supplied, this note would play back at -82 dB from full scale. This is intended, as the real piano responds exactly the same. At -82 dB you cannot hear the artifact that is in this particular sample, you can hardly hear a tone at all, so the artifacts in the sample are not relevant. A non-issue. Even when your listening level is very loud these artifacts are never heard.
What I’m trying to fix is the small issues that are audible when you play the patches. That is what makes the instrument’s playability better. I’m not going into issues that are not audible when playing, that are only audible when listening to the samples in isolation. This is for a simple reason: The samples are programmed into patches to be played as an instrument. Not to be listened at in solo mode.
In this light your list is not very helpful.
More or less the same story is true for the sampling rate and bit depth we used. Who cares about this? What counts is how it sounds. When a velocity layer is always played at a level between roughly -40 db and -50 below full scale it is impossible to tell the difference between 16 and 24 bits or between 48 and 44.1 kHz. So what is the point in keeping everything in one format?
There is no point. We designed this library to become a playable instrument, keeping in mind that RAM and disk streaming load would not be unfair high. For this reason we changed the data size of some layers by using adequate sampling fr4equencies and bit depths. The result sounds not only good it is also less recource-hungry.
So once again, we are trying to fix issues that improve the playability of this library. But we are not chasing phantoms.
Post Musical Instruments BV & Post Audio Media BV
i have never mentioned samples that i have "looked at in isolation". i heard noisy samples, slow samples, and double striking samples, whilst playing funk, blues, and the odd bit of debussy, and i first emailed you about this almost 8 months ago. i feel that your product does not deliver what it promises. you "...agree there remain some small issues that need to be solved." you also feel that advertising a 24 bit library and delivering a mixed 24/16 bit library is acceptable. what can i say?
Sad to see such lack of quality control and sloppy programming at these so called 'premium' libs.
I do not subscribe to the 'who cares, you don't listen to the samples in isolation' view. After all, we're not talking of some 8MB old AKAI or EMU budget GM lib.
The problems are not unique for PMI.
Generally, I am forced to do substantial editing of other 'premium' libs to workaround shortcomings.
Just a recent example:
I was both surprised and disapointed to hear a talking voice right trough a True Strike percussion sample.
Clearly, not enough care was taken at the recording session to keep quiet along the way (Violation of Rule #1). And even less care was taken at subsequent editing.
i do apologize if the topic was "pmi emperor - bad sample" and for most readers here this could be intended as "Emperor=bad samples", this was really not mt intention; in my next reply i also wrote that this sampled piano has got a marvellous sound.
I wrote this topic because i wanted to know wheter other users had the same samples so that i could have had the possibility the get some other ones (if the problem was my dvd or something like this) or the missing ones.
i do not expect any further update; i've been doing the gigantic work of editing all the samples (accurate sample selection, noise reduction, placing silent at the beginning + fade in, setting sample start position). this should make people understand how i do appreciate the emperor. no update in my opinion could ever solve the sample start issue as all the samples would need an editing at the beginning to avoid a glitch right at the start of it.
that said i'll never agree with you regarding the noise, the bit rate and (the most important thing from my point of view) the missing samples\layers. the emperor is sold as a 24 bit-48 khz and 12 +12 LAYERS. The situation now is that not all the samples have that bit rate and that it has got the same number of layers as the old lady (10+10).
it' probably a matter of personal taste or light you put the topic in.
by the way, i'm also a happy owner of the 290 Boesendorfer.
Sorry for necroposting ... but after spending hours trying to figure out where the problem might have been in my system,
and then discovering bad unity note assignments in the velocity layer that is around 105, the next to the highest one,
I just had to tell here that the problem I discovered was that A3 and G#3 have incorrect unity note assignments.
I also own the Bosendorfer 290 and love the sound of both, except the 290 has the panning reversed.
If there's ever been an update for either of these then it would be great to download them.