I\'ve recently been creating sound banks to fit into 450k to 500k sizes
while processingsome creations I\'ve come accross editing techniques for samples within Gig files.
I Urge (stupid herbal exxance commercials come to mind here) you giga users to \"tweak\" here.
I\'ve even got Some EXTREMELY close samples from Brass Super Section to sound completely different with a combination of plug ins. In fact much more usable.
Bruce has always referenced to use about this type of stuff. I\'ve always considered it something that we need to get into....lately I find that it not only helps better our sound...but helps create \"our own\" sound.
I\'m not saying that it replaces \"far mic/Close mic\" options, but oit does, indeed. help us make the best out of our samples
this wasn\'t really a viable option before Gigastudio and software samplers. Now with the \"ease\" of exporting and processign its not hard at all. In fact I can process a 16 CD set in one day if I choose
Of course it takes a bit of listening to optimize editing processies. Even making seperate edit batches for \"ranges of instruments if your a geek like me. Still I think this is key.
We\'re all waiting for the \"perfect\" library and I have a feeling that its out there already. Even The Roland Orch Board from Roland can result in some great sounds for Orchestral stuff. just a matter of learning how to manipulate our sounds
I only put this out becuae I dont think developers should \"define our sound\"
Its more their place to give us oportunities to make good music. Of course options is a plus, but if we rely on them to give us something that everyone else will use, we wil become tired of it in no time.
I\'ve been finding lately that I\'ve been talking about sample libraries I have but dont even use that often. Slowly I\'ve been realizing the options they allow more than the limitations. Its one reason I offer suggestions for \"tweakage\".
Still, more and more I realize that we have some amazing resourses at hand. I mean, I\'ve always realized it, but slowly I\'ve realized how much I can get caught up in waiting for the next new thing.
that shouldn\'t be the point with all the resources we all have available to us at this point
What the use of buying a new 2000 dollar library when we an get good results with the libraries at hand and the sharing of \"tweak\" techniques and \"ears\" and some much cheaper editers and plug ins?
Dont get me wrong, I\'m always interested in seeing new libraries that perform better than others, but Id much rather see all of us users sahre techniques and wants and ideas the same as developers who give us help and techniques to make their libraries better....or even competitor libraries better, or how to use their libraries with competitor libraries.
I dunno. maybe I\'m too frustrated with the complaining.....or too excited at the amount we can accomplish if we try and share. even simple ideas or simple questions.
I am reaching that point as well. I have spent a few thousand pennies in the last two years in sample libraries alone. When the choir thread got started again I found that I too had shelved my ECC, so I put it back on. I found that by playing around with Acoustic Mirror and my Waves Bundle they sound pretty darn good.
I totally see where your coming from King, and I am starting to get into \'tweaking\' instruments in the editor. I also found that by following some of Bruce\'s suggestions with S1 and TrueVerb, the samples are starting to sit in the mix where I want them. I\'d like to see more input from folks (including me ) not just what libraries they have, but how they have edited them and what kind of post processing they do on the tracks to make them sound like they do. I appreciate the detail that King, Simon and others have given about how they get \'the final\' sound in their compositions.
I am the moment processing multiple samles from GOS in batch runs on another computer while I do other things. I\'m putting in EQ settings for each section. SoundStage setteings for each, and a very small Rverb Decay for them all.
I cant believe how easy this is to do. I jsut exported the samples and went to town. It takes some time for the batch processes to work, but still its not much work.
I\'m amazed at what we can all do to get \"our sound\". Of course people dont want to spend all their time tweaking, but I really think people need to spend atleast SOME time doing it. It teaches you what went into the library and maybe how to use it \"better\" or even use it to get a particular sound you\'re looking for.
\"too bright/harsh?\" Throw some EQ into the individual samples...see waht works...you always have the originals.
\"too close\" try pre fader send reverbs or insert reverbs with more wet thean dry settings onthe idividual sample,...jsut dont put a long decay on it
Board with your sounds? Try multiple plug ins in weird combinations, see what happens.
I\'m amazed at the resouce material I now have....
tho I\'m frustrated with the nemesys *.WA_ format. I need to get Awave...isn\'t that the one that converts that format to standard Wav and then back?
Yah, but what about us plug and play types who don\'t have enough time to tweak? (I only get about 1-2 hours a day, if that, to work on my music.) I NEED the perfect library (rock guitar leads and chords!!) today!!!
What would it take to get you to collect your sample tweaking knowledge into one place to give those of us with minimal editing experience a good start? I\'m sure I\'m among several who find the GigaEdit documentation flimsy and vague.
Meanwhile, I will be doing searches and compiling what I can from all your previous posts.
I think you make a hell of a point about \"the sound\". I could use a better understanding of the editing process so I can get in there and tweak things and play around. For now though, my editing chops are minimal as I\'m still trying to make myself, reluctantly, into something of a tech-head to keep up with my tools.
[This message has been edited by Gav (edited 02-18-2002).]
King, you\'ve hit the nail on the thumb again! (Sorry, I mean on the head...)
DG\'s tutorial, if it lives up to its hype (hyped by US, not DG!) will be a great place to start. As a creative artist, there are three things that essentially define my \"sound\"- my compositional/improvisatory creativity first and foremost (some may not relate to the improv part, but I do mainly jazzy stuff,) then the instrumentation/ voices I use, and finally the mix and FX.
I got into synthesis so I could have new, unique voices to tell my stories. Then I got into samplers so the voices could have that organic complexity a pure oscillator can\'t.
Whle I really think the final step is to get into physical modeling, that\'s not a sufficiently developed set of processes to make it time-effective - yet.
So what\'s left is to process our samples and libraries to achieve a personalized sound. This lets us sign our names to our music, but still, when desired, use common orchestral language.
Tweak on, King! Tweak till you\'re too weak to continue. Some of us will join in the medley of mad machinations, others will saw away on plain old orchestral sounds (after all, it\'s really hard to tell the cellos to \"add some ring modulation to those attacks, please.\"
And remember, they don\'t call \'em .ART files for nothin\'.