[A6] RE: Neuron (ot)

[Rhen, Kris]

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

Its not a matter of how HUGE the sampleset is, its a matter of the
horsepower and sample ram required to hold and crossfade the large number of
samples sufficient to fully fill the model (with more than one note
polyphony :-)
 
> There are a limited number of variations you can apply to 
> hitting a piano
> key. That combined with cross-fading and layerd sampling will 

You think so? There's velocity sure.  There's also the body of the piano
itself (thickness of walls, shape, resonance character).  The kind of wires,
the pedals used, the re-hammer of an already oscillating string... piano is
a highly complex instrument - why do you think nothing so far short of
samples has even come close?  And why do you think that (at least in my
experience) piano players balk when they hear sampled piano sounds?
Besides, all these paramters on a piano are analog, so by their very nature,
have an infinite number of combinations.  But sure we can approximate it...
that was my point.

> 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.

This is true because a physical hammered string model is extremely complex -
supporting my point. Why do you think there's no hammered string models?
And sure samples can get 'close enough' - I'm not denying that.

> > 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.

Yes and as I said, this is an issue of 'good enough' IMO (comparing samples
to phys models).  ANY synthesis comes down to 'good enough' when you're
trying to synthesize physical things.  An ANdromeda can make a 'good enough'
piano in some circumstances.
 
> 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.

I doubt it too, but that depends I suppose on the work put into it.
However, a) there is a guitar model that's pretty darn impressive in a Z1
sort of way, and b) I didn't buy it to reproduce physical models - I've got
a MOSS board for that.  I'm not saying they're the same - only that phys
modeling is the closest analogy I can draw in the current technology.
 
> 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).

I don't know - they're German :-)  I'm hoping to put up a nice page with
tons of samples soon.  Maybe they'll hire me :-)

> > 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.

yep, sheesh here too.  Who started name-calling?
 
> > 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 ...

Fair enough :-)  But now we're talking the subjective opinions of what is
musical - did you listen to any of the Aleatoric Duel results?
 
> Sorry Kris but you really are coming over as pompous and self-deluded
> here. F.A.S.  Truhan III Isn't.

Sorry I don't mean to be.  I'm just trying to explain how I understand this
all, as I was asked.  If its coming across that way, I'll have to blame
email-lack-of-face-to-face-understanding.  What exactly did I say to be
perceived that way (example - offlist perhaps)?  I may have snipped at vamp
a bit but we've got a history :-)
KRIS