I do not have it yet, but I\'ve heard it first hand. It is definitely the real deal as far as strings go. I\'ve never heard it\'s equal in a sample library (except for maybe Donnie and Sean\'s new perc library . The sound quality is staggering and the expressive potential will rival many real orchestras. This is the kind of library that if you did not know before hand that it wasn\'t real, you wouldn\'t question it.
After checking the Gigastrings site every day for a month now, I turned into a kid on Christmas Day when I saw the \"Now Shipping!\" advertisement on this forum yesterday!
I\'ve ordered mine as well and can\'t wait to get this great library.
Finally fantastic strings that are not tuned to A-443!!
[This message has been edited by Damon (edited 09-01-2001).]
I\'m not quite sure what your criticism is here. Are you implying that these are identical files? They are not (and obviously not when you look at them in an editor). They are precisely what we claim them to be. One is a real crescendo-diminuendo recorded at the sampling session and the other is simulated using a 4 velocity split crossfade sustain instrument using the mod wheel to control the dynamics.
Or perhaps you are saying that the EXP simulation is not close enough to the real recorded crescendo-diminuendo to be convincing. Sounds pretty close to me but that\'s up to each listener to decide.
Or maybe you\'re saying that such comparisons aren\'t useful or appropriate. Hmmm.
I performed the test you suggested. From what I saw (and heard) I can understand how you\'d come to your conclusion. Looking at the two wavs side by side (reg. the jpg you uploaded) at a 1:64 ratio, what I saw was for the most part nothing more than matched-beat vibrato. To really analyze what you are refering to, I had to look much closer. The transients had a few similarities that struck me as a bit coincidental, but on the whole, it is quite possible for those instances to occur at that infrequent a rate if one is recording the same player, instrument, hall, mic placement, etc. I get what you\'re saying, but it\'s still a bit of a stretch.
I made it a point not to respond to anything you\'ve said so far, for fear of getting side-tracked from my intentions within this forum, but this just bothered me too much. We\'re hearing how good the library is now, and that begs the question, \"Why on earth would the creators feel the need to fake something like this?\" The likelihood strikes me as extremely low. I guess I just don\'t understand what motivated you to waste time trying to find something like this, and discovering a VERY small coincidence, blow it out of proportion.
I know exactly what you are talking about. You\'re wrong. I\'ve never had a problem with people being wrong about something. We all make mistakes, and I\'ve made some doozies, but while I can easily tolerate inacurracy (even a little conspiracy theory now and again), I cannot abide mean, spiteful people. My suggestion to you is to zoom in a little more than a 1:64 ratio, and focus only on the transient peaks. I think you\'ll find that while it is a little coincidental in places, your point doesn\'t really hold water, and was just a downright mean thing to accuse those hard-working people of. I\'m going back to my usual mostly lurker status, and continue to try to find more useful ideas on this forum. Please stop interupting the good threads with this kind of stuff.
Just my 2 cents, and I\'m sorry for perpetuating all of this with another post. It won\'t happen again.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Endicott: Tom, please check the \"Legato\" thread. I´d suggest we´d choose to stay there, although here it would be more appropiate.
Endicott, be more obvious about the point you\'re trying to make, instead of staying deliberately vague and then insult other people\'s intelligence when they don\'t get what you\'re on about. (referring to the legato thread)
From my viewpoint, the waveforms you captured display exactly the thing you would want from a library; phrasing as close to a real recorded instrument as you could get.
Secondly, if you really want to be clever and start making assumptions about sampled material, a simple amplitude waveform display at such a ratio is not going to hack it. I could easily create two waveforms that from an amplitude point of view look exactly the same, but from a sound (read spectral) viewpoint sound completely different.
If you want to do an accurate comparison, show people a high resolution FFT alongside with the amplitude.
Then again, let\'s just not bother; nobody is forcing you to buy garritan\'s strings, and from what I\'ve heard and read, it is the real deal. If you disagree or think they\'re trying to con you, than simply *don\'t* buy their product.