• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Topic: ARIA future: some thoughts

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    ARIA future: some thoughts

    Hi Guys. I have been reading the forum since the gpo4 launch and want to share with you and developers some thoughts about ARIA, that, imho, can help.
    I have made a review of the ARIA engine itself from the viewpoint of the sfz enthusiast that you can read here: http://www.kvraudio.com/user_review/2632.html

    This is how i see ARIA for the GPO users, please let me know what do you think:

    1-For regular users: For most of the users, ARIA is a very nice step forward. You have the same that with Kontakt player 2 (or 3.5 now). Same instruments (plus the SAM ones) and similar way of work. And ARIA is very light the use of your system resources. The only thing you are missing here is the included effects of KP (i miss the convolution reverb, it is very nice) but you can replace it with external plugins. Ambience reverb included with ARIA is very nice too. Additionaly, you can load any external content in sfz format. KP dont allow you to do that.

    2-For advanced users: I include in this group of people the users that owns GPO bug also Kontakt FULL edition, not player. In this case, i see that maybe they are feeling that ARIA is a step backwards, because the sample&mapping edition of Kontakt, based in a visual interface.
    (Not considering the price differences, since you cant choose "ARIA full" at least by now)You have that power in ARIA (and really, the potential here is so big) but to exploit it, you need to know how to edit sfz files, and take time to learn it programming. This task can be daunting for ones, and too much work for others.
    So, imho, what is missing ARIA - for this kind of users- is:
    1-A well documented and updated SFZ help.
    2-Some visual GUI for, at least, the basic things, like extend the range of an instrument, or change one layer range.

    3-For developers:
    ARIA is a capable sampler with lot of potential, and i have succesfully converted other big libraryes and they play so nice with ARIA.
    I would like to see developers making libraryes for it (the availables in SFZ format already are!).
    But even a developer can be costumed to deal with text editing, more than a user, i believe that they will welcome some kind of editor/converter that help their task, something like a SFZed improvement.
    I have hear about that you have much more power editing the text files... is possible. But this brings my mind the popularity of Visual programming languages like Visual Basic. Of course you can make more powerfull things writing in machine code, but is not for all, the Visuals always help.



    Well, all this are my opinions. Im not saying Gary must give us this features for free, he already is giving a lot with ARIA, more than most of us figure, but, IMHO, this things would help to the future of ARIA.
    Said that, im more than happy with ARIA as is. Thanks very much about it.
    Marcelo Colina

  2. #2

    Re: ARIA future: some thoughts

    Hi, Marce - Your review is very positive, and your request for more SFZ info is very reasonable.

    I've seen it said on some threads that for some reason it isn't practical for the opcodes to be shared at present. I do hope we can at least be pointed to a few lines we can edit for some basic changes, like sharper attacks for fast passages.

    At least Pascal and Tom showed us (on my SFZ-polyphony thread) how easy it is to revert the solo instruments back to monophonic playback - something I found to be essential for Aria to be useful to me.

    Randy

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Orcas Island
    Posts
    11,454

    Re: ARIA future: some thoughts

    Marce,

    Thanks for your input and it is encouraging that users like you want to see SFZ develop into a robust platform.

    This is a first release and our first priority was stability, efficiency, reliability and a good user experience. I think we achieved our objective.
    I was so concerned about those objectives in light of the experience of other players that had difficulty upon initial release.

    We are in touch with Cakewalk and other companies on a SFZ workgroup to further the SFZ platform and provide better documentation. I agree that a GUI for editing is needed and this is something that is important. We also have all of the GIGA technology at our disposal as well as other unique technologies we can incorporate. We have been contacted by many third party developers who are interested in the platform. So the future looks very bright for the future of ARIA.

    Keep those ideas coming.

    Best regards,

    Gary

  4. #4

    Re: ARIA future: some thoughts

    I have to state it again:

    1.Knobs readout - totally necessary! no excuse (To see any value when tweaking, for better transport)

    2.One level less folder structure (no load instrument 'standard->...)

    3.Classic instrument names (stradivari. Additional minimal description for various plr's (mellow, sharp, breathy, glassy. That would be useful for having a better reference while browsing)

    Thank you Garritan.
    btw: I've printed all 163 manual pages today. Two sides per sheet + two-sided. Just need to attach it, but I wish I had a manual packaged all included was the plastic DVD-case, a one-side printed page and the cd!
    This new trend is bad for legal customers.
    I like to read while appending "certain business".

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    4,045

    Re: ARIA future: some thoughts

    I don't believe the folder structure will change. There is normally a Standard and Notation subfolders depending on if your using Standard patches for normal sequencing or the Notation folder with notation programs such as Finale.

    Jim

  6. #6

    Re: ARIA future: some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaMaster View Post
    I have to state it again:

    2.One level less folder structure (no load instrument 'standard->...)
    I think it's essential to have the two folders. The 'Notation set' is required when I work with Finale and the 'Standard Set' is needed when working without a notation editor.
    Michael
    Patience is a virtue, sensitivity is a gift

  7. #7

    Re: ARIA future: some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaMaster View Post
    I have to state it again:

    1.Knobs readout - totally necessary! no excuse (To see any value when tweaking, for better transport)

    2.One level less folder structure (no load instrument 'standard->...)

    3.Classic instrument names (stradivari. Additional minimal description for various plr's (mellow, sharp, breathy, glassy. That would be useful for having a better reference while browsing)
    .
    I would apreciate too points #2 and #3.
    The issue with point #1 is the menu you need to navigate. In kontakt, by example, you also had the two "standard" and "notations" folders, but they were open at side, and you could add several instruments from the last folders you used, since it remained opened, like a explorer folder. So, i believe that the issue is not the folder structure per se, is the menu navigation that make you give 3 or 4 mouse clicks instead or 1 or 2, each time you want to add an instrument.
    Marcelo Colina

  8. #8

    Re: ARIA future: some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by marce View Post
    I would apreciate too points #2 and #3.
    The issue with point #1 is the menu you need to navigate. In kontakt, by example, you also had the two "standard" and "notations" folders, but they were open at side, and you could add several instruments from the last folders you used, since it remained opened, like a explorer folder. So, i believe that the issue is not the folder structure per se, is the menu navigation that make you give 3 or 4 mouse clicks instead or 1 or 2, each time you want to add an instrument.
    Just for reference:
    In GPO2 I can go load instrument->"dry/wet/x-custom"->and bang here's are the instrument groups! (woodwind, strings, brass etc)

    Also any reason not making this possible is laughable, since they can program an ARIA engine.

    Its not a reason how the folders are arranged, it's whoever takes the additional work to program what the user sees. This as extra option shouldn't be too much work.

    Either 'GPO' or 'Standard' folder has to go, at least the possibility to tweak folder structures.

    Thanks

    *Edit* I couldn't resist saying this: Its like going into Mc Donalds and order a "Fast Food->Burgers->Cheeseburger". As if there's anything else

  9. #9

    Re: ARIA future: some thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaMaster View Post
    In GPO2 I can go load instrument->"dry/wet/x-custom"->and bang here's are the instrument groups! (woodwind, strings, brass etc)

    Also any reason not making this possible is laughable, since they can program an ARIA engine.
    Comments like that irritate me (perhaps because I'm a curmudgeon). There are many non-laughable reasons. There's the time and expense of designing, coding, testing and documenting such changes. There's the possible reduction in the stability of the product if the function requires changing the underlying structure of the product. (I have no idea if the requested function would require such a change. I doubt you do either, but I could be wrong.)

    Gary already said he was after "stability, efficiency, reliability and a good user experience". I consider that laudable, not laughable. He also invited requests for enhancements

    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaMaster View Post
    Its not a reason how the folders are arranged, it's whoever takes the additional work to program what the user sees. This as extra option shouldn't be too much work.

    Either 'GPO' or 'Standard' folder has to go, at least the possibility to tweak folder structures.
    In the case of "Standard" vs. "Notation" you are partially right: theses "folders" do not reflect a level in the library's directory structure (at least in Windows) so that difference could be encoded some other way - some settable option. But that choice definitely has to be indicated in some way.

    The "GPO" level cannot be done away with since it chooses among Garritan products. So far the options (that I'm aware of) are COMB, GPO, and Finale Default Bank. I'm sure there will be more in the future. Eliminating the choice if you have only one of the products? Maybe that's a possibility, but I think you should ask for it, not just state it should be done.

    Pat

  10. #10

    Re: ARIA future: some thoughts

    Two questions on ARIA engine, while we're at it
    Any chance (in the future) of

    1) Custom velocity curves
    2) String instruments with an option for the volume level to respond to note velocity instead of mod wheel (classic synth style) - (just that I find that very useful for improvisations - the mod wheel control is of course still much better for achieving orchestral "realism" in music)

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
  •