• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Topic: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    With due respect to the people that have been trashing AI in this thread, I would like to offer a counterpoint perspective.

    I should stipulate that I agree that the demo on the AI site does not sound as good in many ways as polished final mixes from VSL or EWQL. However, I believe that many of the commentators are missing the point of what AI is trying to do- create a process for a very quick and realistic rendering of orchestral compositions. I do not think they are trying to equal the overall sound quality of an EW or VSL product, but are instead trying to address simplifying the orchestral recording process and add more musical spontaneity. I think it would be interesting to compare a real-time (no overdub, no editing) piece on VSL or EWQL to AI. Perhaps someone on the forum can post something for comparison.

    Now, as far as the price is concerned, let's compare the hardware requirements of setting up a real-time equivalent EWQL or VSL system to the cost of AI. I think one would need multiple computers for trying to do what AI can do (eg. multiple articulations real-time) in the same way that AI does. So from that perspective, the price differential between AI and other systems to set up a "real time" composing situation probably isn't that different.

    Additionally, even though others may be able to engineer the DVZ and time hysteresis elements, AI is leading the way in introducing these technologies and should be applauded for advancing the state of the art.

    I followed the blog trashing of VSL for years before they launched and eventually refined their product to its current state. They were ahead of their time and suffered through similar negative commentary, only to later prove the nay-sayers wrong. My observation of the end-user community of musicians is that many often fail to truly appreciate the efforts of developers to advance the state of the art, developers whose efforts are often motivated more by passion for the art than desire for monetary reward.

    I am not affiliated with AI in any way. I am only reacting to what I have been reading on this site (and others) and commentfing about what I understand about the intent of AI. I, for one, applaud the efforts of AI for what they are trying to accomplish. I hope they can succeed, because musicians and composers will benefit as a result.

  2. #2

    Re: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    I tend to feel the same way as you do on both your points.
    Cheers,
    Chris

  3. #3

    Re: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    Quote Originally Posted by hendrkf
    However, I believe that many of the commentators are missing the point of what AI is trying to do- create a process for a very quick and realistic rendering of orchestral compositions. I do not think they are trying to equal the overall sound quality of an EW or VSL product, but are instead trying to address simplifying the orchestral recording process and add more musical spontaneity.
    Problem is that GPO has been doing precisely that for years, at the princely cost of $250.

    Sorry, but I think the others are right - asking this kind of price tag for something that sounds so far below other, cheaper products is just ludicrous.

    Also, I don't think your point about the hardware requirements of those products is correct. People do certainly need multiple machines to run WHOLE ORCHESTRAS in VSL or EWQLSO, but in both those cases I think (I don't use VSL) just a string section, with full range of articulations, can run on one reasonable PC. And that's what we're comparing here - AI is just a string section.

    They MAY well be on the cusp of something important that will get there in another 2 or 3 years. Or they may not. Or VSL or someone else may get there first. Or the whole Synful/Wallander/Physical Modelling thing may send all such mega-libraries the way of the dinosaurs.

    But for the present (which is all we can know about for sure, really) the product, at its price, by the sound of the demo, is a lemon.

  4. #4

    Re: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    Quote Originally Posted by hendrkf
    I should stipulate that I agree that the demo on the AI site does not sound as good in many ways as polished final mixes from VSL or EWQL. However, I believe that many of the commentators are missing the point of what AI is trying to do- create a process for a very quick and realistic rendering of orchestral compositions. I do not think they are trying to equal the overall sound quality of an EW or VSL product, but are instead trying to address simplifying the orchestral recording process and add more musical spontaneity. I think it would be interesting to compare a real-time (no overdub, no editing) piece on VSL or EWQL to AI. Perhaps someone on the forum can post something for comparison.
    I would just take you up on a few points, although only the first is really necessary:

    1) Doesn't sound good; deal breaker.
    2) Realistic? Not in the least.
    3) You can't create an orchestral composition (and in fact it's strings only at this point) with two hands. That creates a block harmony, amateur, organ effect. With proper spacing and phrasing it takes more than one pass, due to the limitations of fingers, hands, stretch etc.

    There is no point in trying to compare real-time anything until there is a demo that sounds better than GM sounds on a SoundBlaster IMO.

    D

  5. #5

    Re: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    Let us wait what will heaven.... .

    When I read this all here and in the other thread about DVZ, there comes a general question to me:

    What do you want to hear at a library sellers homepage, polished or unpolished final mixes?

    Gunther
    "Music is the shorthand of emotion." Leo Tolstoy

    Listen to me, tuning my triangle http://www.box.net/shared/ae822u6r3i

  6. #6

    Re: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    Quote Originally Posted by germancomponist
    Let us wait what will heaven.... .

    When I read this all here and in the other thread about DVZ, there comes a general question to me:

    What do you want to hear at a library sellers homepage, polished or unpolished final mixes?

    Gunther
    Both............

    D

  7. #7

    Re: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    I'm certain that the early negative feedback about VSL helped those developers to understand how to properly position and market their library. We are doing the guys at DVZ a favor by letting them know how their demo is being perceived. My sense is that this market is moving towards technology that uses modeling and advanced scripting/filtering to create realistic, expressive results using LESS memory and computer resources, as opposed to adding ever more gigabytes of samples to the point where three CPUS are needed to render just a string section. Personally I'm a lot more excited about the WIVI brass and TruePianos than this stuff.

    To my ears this demo sounds more like a four year old Roland rompler than a high-end library in terms of realism and expression. That is my honest impression, not hyperbole.

    If DVZ wants to continue the process of developing their system they had better sell at least a few of them. Perhaps they should concentrate on video demos which put in context the advantages of their approach and let us know what DVZ can do that an XV-5080 with the "Symphonique Strings" card can't.

  8. #8

    Re: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    VSL never received the same overall amount of negative comments upon releasing their first demos.

  9. #9

    Re: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcussen
    VSL never received the same overall amount of negative comments upon releasing their first demos.
    Yeah exactly, AI should play to their strengths. Few things I wanna bring up:
    • Why not post a demo that shows different string section sizes? I thought the whole point was that DVZ let you customize that realistically in a way other libs don't.
    • If having the most realistic sound quality isn't their goal, okay - why not show us a realtime preview of the process from improvising on a keyboard to printed score?
    • And finally, if having the most realistic sound quality isn't their goal, why the overblown focus on 192 khz? If something doesn't sound all that realistic at 44, it won't magically get better at 192.
    Overall I just feel like they might have a good idea with the SPACE algorithm, but are totally marketing the wrong way and drawing more disdain and disappointment than interest. If you're gonna hail your product as the "Lamborghini of sample libraries", at least show off its strengths instead of giving like the worst possible presentation.

    All I can come up with is the crazy conspiracy theory that they actually don't want many composers to buy it, and are trying to discourage folks who aren't on the A-list. Wouldn't surprise me if he was going right to peoples' studios (or inviting them to his own) and offering private demos that are far more impressive.
    Wilbert Roget, II
    Composer
    Rogetmusic.com

  10. #10

    Re: Audio Impressions DVZ, a different viewpoint

    See here are my issues:

    don't care about the project. all bashing from my behalf (which was not exactly bashing, but anyways, I was and am negative) is bassed on the demo/price. Dont' care about the future. If in 2 years time this is a great library I'll say so. Same with anything in life. A composer starting out today will be better in 2 years time. If he sucks at first, you say so, and then he grows to be better. Makes sense.

    Second point. I can't for the shake of me, see how on earth a person can play real time 5 sections, and because my writing can get pretty complex, there's no way I will study that hard in the piano (and I play really good piano, I used to at least) to play what I'm supposed to do, real time, only to tweak it afterwards.

    Third point. I work with the final product being with samples. I'm not at the point where the budget alows for me to fly to Prague, or Moscow or someplace and have my pieces performed live! Thus I care very much for the final product through my samples. And I think that many do. So if AI is there to create fast mock-ups to be replaced by live recordings (which seems to be with the budget) then it's not for me... Not right now at least!

    Fourth point. The price. The price involves 3 computers and the library which is at the 3000-4000$ range (won't bother to look now). For the library to do, what it's supposed to, it needs 3 computers, so in fact you NEED the full 11,999$! End of story! If you take out the computers, you then end up with a product that is not at full potential. Pros, who already have a farm of computers, probably have them stacked already with samples. Which means that AI, can't fit in there. Simply put the price is for the whole system, but don't see it working for much else... Not as things seem to be.



    If AI get better, and demos come to prove the quality (which I really believe must be good, and already know that it can do things that can't be done with any other library, like Ligeti stuff, and micro-counterpoint, and huge div sections...) then I have no problem to admit it. But it's not a matter of right or wrong. Bassed on what I (we) know, the demo is not great. Let's face it.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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