• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Topic: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Question what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    OK, simply like the title says.. What's so great about having the convolution reverb within the sampler? such as kontakt 2 and gigapulse? What is the difference between using say the reverb IR in Kontakt 2, or just using it in on the audio output of the sampler like Space Designer or other reverbs?

  2. #2

    Re: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    Well.. it's really up to the developer to decide whether or not they want to bundle their reverb algorithm with their sampler, or release it as a seperate plugin. Besides that, it is more convenient for the user to have tools integrated with the sampler, especially when your sampler cannot be hosted as a VST/DX.
    Zircon Studios - Original music for media, electronica, sound design, and synthesis.

  3. #3

    Re: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    If you use GS slave machines, conv is using the GS cpu and not your DAWs...

    You have send control for every chanel inside GS3, you cant do this with conv on DAW unless u are using GS3 in rewire...

    Tjerk

  4. #4
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    The difference is if you are using convolution in order to achieve an instrument behavior dynamically--like pedal up/down, or body resonance. In these cases, you are using the convolution for more specifically programmed tasks than can be achieved with a blanket application of a channel-insert or buss. Hence the inclusion of convolution in the actual instrument specification.

    There are certainly cases where one would use a convolver as just a "room" to play sounds into. In these cases, there is no practical difference in outcomes between sampler based convolution and track/buss based convolution.

  5. #5

    Re: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    I ran into a midi acoustic guitar demo somewhere recently which provided a good illustration. The body resonance was done with convolution and pitch bends appeared to be done with a controller adjusting sample frequency and panning position. The cool thing was that each string seemed to occupy its own space and the body resonance didn't bend with the strings... just as you'd expect a real acoustic guitar to behave. Of course you could achieve the same result in a daw with a bit of doing. Whereas with an integrated convolution sampler you could just load it up and play it.

    Howard
    Ragtime Press

  6. #6

    Re: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    I understand the possibility of using the convolution for more specific purposes than just reverb. But what if we are using it for reverb. Gigapulse is clearly designed much more with that in mind than helping to emulate instrument bodies or pedalling. And with dry libraries such as VSL then it's very tempting to go down that route, rather than buy another convolution reverb. But this then leaves you with the problem of making any other audio tracks, not coming from GS3, sit in the mix, since they can't be fed through Gigapulse.

    Or am I missing something?

  7. #7

    Re: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pingu
    I understand the possibility of using the convolution for more specific purposes than just reverb. But what if we are using it for reverb. Gigapulse is clearly designed much more with that in mind than helping to emulate instrument bodies or pedalling. And with dry libraries such as VSL then it's very tempting to go down that route, rather than buy another convolution reverb. But this then leaves you with the problem of making any other audio tracks, not coming from GS3, sit in the mix, since they can't be fed through Gigapulse.

    Or am I missing something?

    What you are missing is that if you have a GSIF 2.0 compatible sound card, you can route audio into GS in real time and use the same convolution settings.

  8. #8

    Re: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordo
    OK, simply like the title says.. What's so great about having the convolution reverb within the sampler? such as kontakt 2 and gigapulse? What is the difference between using say the reverb IR in Kontakt 2, or just using it in on the audio output of the sampler like Space Designer or other reverbs?
    First off, it's not only about reverbs... it's about making instruments sound more real and making life easier for the end user.

    How does convolution improve the way an instrument sounds and why offer it as part of the sample player?

    Basically because you can integrate the impulses and their settings ( tweaks ) as part of the delivered instrument... When the end user loads the instrument, they get the settings for the instrument and the settings for the convolution and any other 'tweaks' necessary to make that instrument sound it's best.

    Understand that convolution is not only about reverbs... Anything that can provide interesting 'colors' can be impulsed...

    Such as: Vintage recording gear impulses, microphone coloration impulses, 'air', and other geeky stuff... They are all now being used in convolution settings to make sampled instruments sound better.

    Simply managing large amounts of impulses in most stand alone convolution plug-ins is a daunting task... (i.e. "just where DID I put that left channel surround impulse for the church in pew #64?").

    Not to mention the fact that once you've loaded the impulse, invariably those impulses have to be 'tweaked' to sound correct for the sample that is loaded.

    Having the convolution and sample integrated into one seemless easy to load instrument makes life much easier on the end user.

    When convolution settings and impulses are integrated into the finished instrument with the samples in a sample player ( as GigaStudio 3 does )... The end user simply loads the 'instrument' and all of the impluses, settings, and other tweaks which have been adjusted for that particular instrument are loaded automatically.

    How does convlution help in making instruments sound better (not counting the obvious Reverb stuff)?

    Let's take snare drums for an example...

    When you change the pitch of a drum component in a standard drum library without convolution, you change the pitch of the drum, the microphone coloration that was used to record the drum, the room reflections that bleed into the microphones when the drum was sampled, and any reverb that was added to that drum sample in order for that drum to sound the way that the designer intended for that drum to sound...

    Everything is built in and cannot easily be changed... (Except for maybe pitch and ADSR characteristics)

    But changing the pitch of the finished product on a traditional drum sample library changes things that don't necessarily need to be changed... (Or SHOULDN'T be changed i.e. The room, the microphone color, any reverb or EQ that may have been added etc)

    However, if you add convolution AFTER the pitch of the drum is changed, the result is a MUCH more realistic sounding drum component.

    This is because the only thing being changed by the pitch change is the actual original drum sound... all other factors that determine the sound of the drum are left unchanged. (As they should be)

    This is one of the reasons why the "Larry Seyer Acoustic Drums" drum kits sound so real... As you change the pitch of any of the drum components (snare for example), it is more like tuning the snare drum than it is a computer changing the pitch of a drum sample.

    Check out the drum library video demonstration on the website ( http://www.larryseyer.com/lsl ) to see exactly what I'm talking about here. There is a section near the middle of the video that shows exactly what this sounds like...

    As the video shows, you can almost hear the drummer tightening or loosening the drum tuning key to get the pitch of the snare up or down... It's not like pitching a sample up or down at all.

    As I change the pitch of the snare drum, you can hear that it is very similar to actually tuning the snare... the room, the microphone coloration etc, stay the same... only the pitch of the snare changes.

    This allows for an almost infinite variety in snare drum tones that sound totally real... Multiply this by the number of kicks, snares, hats, etc in the library and you can quickly see how a sampler with convolution integrated into the environment (such as what GS3 has) offers an extremely wide variety of sounds to build real sounding instruments from.

    It makes our drum library more like a drum system instead of a simple sample playback library.

    Convolution is the future of sampled instruments.

    You can bet that sample developers are hard at work creating new instruments with integrated impulses.

    There is even a new Violin library coming out that allows the end user to pick which body the violin has... Want a baroque body? no problem... Want a Strat body? no problem... Want a viola body with violin strings? no problem.

    I predict that there will even be piano libraries that use a common string sample set and allow the end user to choose the type of sound board and dampers.

    All of this is possible using impulses and convolution...

    Best to all!

    Larry Seyer
    http://www.larryseyer.com
    NorthernSounds.NET.
    View Larry Seyer's Profile at NorthernSounds.net

  9. #9

    Re: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    Hi Pingu,
    GigaPulse is designed to do IR impulses on sampled instruments. The current focus of development is towards included body resonances to make instruments behave more natural.
    This can never be done with external IR engines as the convolution engine needs to be controlled by instrument specific parameters and midi controller data.

    Also you forget that one included convolution engine in the sampler can be used much more efficiently than an external effect. The external effect processes the final output of a sampler only. The internal effect can be adjusted to work in different ratios with all single components that appear on the sampler output. This leaves you in complete control over the actual balance of the effect ratio of each individual instrument.
    Best regards,
    Michiel Post


  10. #10
    Senior Member Robert Kooijman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Karlskrona, Sweden
    Posts
    233

    Re: what's better about having the Conv Reverb inside the sampler?

    If only GS3 itself would integrate...

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
  •