• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Topic: Let's use this forum to determine basic standards for instrumental sample sets.

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Let\'s use this forum to determine basic standards for instrumental sample sets.

    When one compares the various sets of samples available commercially (and also non-commercially on the Net), one sees a total lack of uniformity in standards--if not actual chaos.

    This is apparent even in such basic matters as identifying pitches. For example, Middle
    C is unquestionably supposed to be set at C4. It was established at C4 in many standard musical reference works for decades prior to MIDI--not to mention professional music typesetting software such as SCORE back in the Seventies. However, when one examines the pitch names in the GIGs (and their internal WAVs) on CDs, one finds total confusion on whether Middle C is C3, C4 or C5. To add to the confusion, there are several different places in any GIG (and its internal WAvs) where pitch names can be set: for example (1) the Unity Note; (2) the WAVfile\'s MS-DOS/Windows filename; and (3) the WAVfiles internal name. It is rare to find commercial GIGs in which all of these names have been set to the same octave or even the same note. It is time to put an end to this bedlam--which only results in lost time and bewilderment for users of GigaSampler and GigaStudio. As the very first Universal GigaSample Standard, I think users should demand that every sample in every GIG be named properly, with Middle C = C4, and uniformly in every pitch name thoughout the file.

    Now there are many other standards for GIGs and their interior WAV files that need to be set. And this forum is a good place to discuss them.

    Regards,
    Alkan

    [This message has been edited by Charles-Valentin Alkan (edited 01-04-2001).]

  2. #2

    Re: Let\'s use this forum to determine basic standards for instrumental sample sets.

    Looks like an interesting idea. There is indeed overall too much redundancy both in the Editor and the executable. Nemesys programmers seem to indulge to complex and basically useless \"fasade\" facilities while skipping over serious problems. Tuning samples within and across instruments is another example of how can be difficult to work with the Editor.

  3. #3

    Re: Let\'s use this forum to determine basic standards for instrumental sample sets.

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles-Valentin Alkan:
    I think users should demand that every sample in every GIG be named properly, with Middle C = C4, and uniformly in every pitch name thoughout the file.

    We have done that with the Scarbee J-Slap.
    I too had to learn this and actally re-program/rename more than 1000 samples. It was
    Jim Van Buskirk from Nemesys that made this clear for me, while beta-testing.
    Tough job though, but necesssary.

    Thomas

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Winsted, CT
    Posts
    1,338

    Re: Let\'s use this forum to determine basic standards for instrumental sample sets.

    I\'d like to put in a plug for naming Dimensions and states, and a furthur plug to have that information show up on the MIDI control surface in GSt.

  5. #5

    Re: Let\'s use this forum to determine basic standards for instrumental sample sets.

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bill:
    I\'d like to put in a plug for naming Dimensions and states, and a furthur plug to have that information show up on the MIDI control surface in GSt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    OK, Bill--you touched on a real sore spot. What is the one thing a user wants when he is about to try out a new or unfamiliar GIGfile?: INFORMATION!!!! Detailed, reliable, clear information about the GIG\'s musical contents and technical parameters. And where should this information be located? Obviously, in the GIGfile itself--possibly in the properties window, preferably in the Comments box (which is accesible with QuickSound). And that is precisely what is missing from 99% of the commercial CDs on the market. Almost always, that information is nowhere to be found, or it is incomplete, or it is expressed in those absolutely absurd descriptive filenames that GIGmakers love to dream up. Most of these GIG and WAV filenames are incomprehensible anyway. You would think that many of these GIG makers are musically illiterate. Evidently many of them, have never heard of the traditional standard Italian musical terms--like f and p--that all musicians have been using for centuries.

    I propose that we on this forum devise a basic data base of information that should be included in every GIGfile. This could be a simple list of around a dozen items that any user would want to know before he selected a particular GIG. I am going try to put together an example of what I mean, and I\'ll post it here. I will be interested to see all of your reactions to it.

    Regards,
    Alkan



    [This message has been edited by Charles-Valentin Alkan (edited 01-05-2001).]

  6. #6

    Re: Let\'s use this forum to determine basic standards for instrumental sample sets.

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charles-Valentin Alkan:
    To add to the confusion, there are several different places in any GIG (and its internal WAvs) where pitch names can be set: for example (1) the Unity Note; (2) the WAVfile\'s MS-DOS/Windows filename......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hello Alkan,

    You\'ve brought up a very good topic! The problem of standard pitch and sample range extends even beyond Giga into the realm of sampling itself. I\'ve noticed under GigaEditor that the system treats a unity note as _relative_ rather than just strictly _absolute_. In other words I can shift a whole range of notes down an octave (say from C4 down to C3) and with proper sample re-transposition under the Instrument Editor I can still make it sound as if its still @ C4. Confused? That\'s just the tip of the iceberg because you can go beyond this. There are certain advantages and flexibilities inherent in treating pitch in this manner even though at first it seems unnecessarily messy. I agree wholeheartedly that sample makers who create acoustic libraries should follow the standard and pay close attention to proper unity values and instrumental ranges. It makes it that much easier for the user, specially to those that work closely with notation. I can say that most of the problems I\'ve encountered have come from older Akai -> Giga conversions done via sconverter or something similar. The old Miroslav string sample set converted an octave below so it was amusing the first time to see a printout of a quick draft from my sequencer where the score sheets had all instruments out of range.

    Regads,
    Faisal.

Go Back to forum

Tags for this Thread

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
  •