[A6] RE: Neuron (ot)

[UnderTow]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Rhen, Kris wrote:

> >      So, if you want to argue it from the standpoint of
> > instrument realism,
> > I'd say the sampler has the edge. Get a microphone and the
>
> I disagree, because its the very nuances of playing that the phys model is
> designed to reproduce, whereas samplers are meant to play back samples.  To
> capture all the nuances you'd have to sample every possible set.

Not really. Why do you think GigaSampler has HUGE sample sets of Pianos
for instance?

There are a limited number of variations you can apply to hitting a piano
key. That combined with cross-fading and layerd sampling will give you the
best sounding real piano that isn't a piano. No current physical model of
a piano can beat that at the moment.

> > instrument you
> > want to sample, and program away. Since the basis you're
> > working with is
> > the actual instrument and not a digital approximation, you
> > would have an edge using that method.
>
> Ah but there you're wrong.  Samples ARE digital approximations as I've
> shown.

Not more so than recording your final product. And if it is as good as
that, it is good enough.

> >      Again, if you take care to program it and play it
> > properly, my opinion
> > is a sampler will do a better job at exactly this. I do say this from
> > comparing results from using several different samplers, a
> > Z1, and various
> > Yamaha physical modeling synths as well.
>
> Well, as I said, this tells me your 'good enough' would be different than
> mine when, say, wanting to put a realistic sax in your mix, but that's fair
> enough.

But the question still is: Will the Neuron give you a realistic sax? Will
it sound even as good as a Z1 sax? I doubt it. Hopefully I am wrong.

> > being debated. What IS being debated is the reality versus hype of the
> > method the Neuron uses to achieve it's sounds, when other
> > methods that have
> > already existed can get the same type of sounds with a great deal less
> > expense.
>
> Frankly, until you use one somewhere other than a busy loud tradeshow I find
> it hard to feel you have a real basis to make any sort of comparison, going
> on some mediocre MP3s, a few minutes listening to presets, and some
> not-hands-on understanding.  I guess you can believe that if you'd like.

Why do the mp3s sound mediocre? Is it because Hartmann just don't
understand marketing (hopefully) or because that is as good as the Neuron
gets? (Hopefully not).

> Sounds like you've got a bit of that "You're also making a dangerous habit
> of stating your opinion as fact when it is only your opinion" going on there
> vamp...

Sheesh.

> > Hartmann cheating
> > synthesist into thinking the Neuron can make new unheard-of
> > sounds, when
> > really it only uses a new method to achieve a family of sounds we've
> > already been hearing, regardless of how they're made? My
> > opinion is yes.
>
> So the real test here of your logic would be if I made a sound on my Neuron
> and you couldn't reproduce it on your samplers, then you'd be wrong correct?

It would have to sound musicaly good too ...

> > Obviously you disagree and you certainly have a right to hold your own
> > different opinion, but it's very small-minded and pompous of
> > you to somehow
> > think your opinion more viable or closer to absolute truth than anyone
> > elses, as you obviously seem to in at least this case.
>
> Back at ya Vamp.  I'm just explaining things as I understand them.  Just
> because I disagree with you doesn't mean my opinions are closer to truth
> than yours - just that those are MY opinions I'm presenting.  Get over it
> pal.  Paranoia is small minded.  The world's not out to get ya... sheesh
> KRIS

Sorry Kris but you really are coming over as pompous and self-deluded
here. F.A.S.  Truhan III Isn't.

UnderTow