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

Topic: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Question K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    Beware, It's not a flaming thread about crashing and BSOD...

    K2 scripting has many possibilities with samples handling. With K2 we can use ,among others, the TKT tool (machine gun eraser) and the Big Bob SIPS (for legato, sliding, vibrato effects)

    Giga has tools like the DEF filter, Legato Mode, PRF filter, Imidi. But in concrete terms we don't know what they are made for. Are they programmable ?

    Can we create a TKT or SIPS tool with Giga ?
    It is possible to programm a DEF or PRF filter with K2 ?
    Will Batman and Robin finally get married some day ?

    SergeD

  2. #2
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge
    Giga has tools like the DEF filter, Legato Mode, PRF filter, Imidi. But in concrete terms we don't know what they are made for. Are they programmable ?
    SergeD
    Yes, these are all programmable functions that are part of the instrument spec.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge
    Can we create a TKT or SIPS tool with Giga ?
    It is possible to programm a DEF or PRF filter with K2 ?
    Will Batman and Robin finally get married some day ?

    SergeD
    You could program the Giga instrument in a way that would behave like a TKT tool, within the editor. You'd just use round robin dimensions and pitch shifting to do it. You'd actually get a more predictable outcome because you could tweak each note's components to maximum effect. Ditto with the SIPS functions you describe. Just go into the editor and set those behaviors up.

    As far as the DEF functions, I don't know if you could script those in K2, because they are very specifically designed filter behaviors. Probably not. A PRF type of behavior would be very standard stuff, should be more than easily scriptable (as in the examples you've given).

    The only difference in user "exchange" of these kinds of instrument improvements is that with Giga, you'd need to exchange .ART files to apply to a particular library to implement the design changes, or in some cases, Editor Macros would be a more roll-your-own approach. In other cases, they're features you can just turn on and evaluate results yourself.

    The bottom line is that you just need to look at the desired behavior. There are unique ways to get results on each system.

  3. #3

    Re: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    Thanks Bruce for your given time,

    About the DEF, Sonic Implants gives a description of this powerful feature

    -----

    The DEF filter provides a continuous, note-dependent, morphing filter for adding expressiveness before and after sustaining note-on events. For the first time ever, frequency responses can accurately and continuously morph between velocity dynamics, even after note-on events have occurred.

    The result of DEF implementation is like having both cross-fades that extend beyond the range of each sample and velocity response happening together, only without the phase coloration and polyphony hit typical of cross-fading. With our new instruments incorporating DEF, players can continuously modulate the velocity response, before and after note-on, for previously unattainable levels of musicality.

    -----

    So it's possible to implement TKT, legato tool and DEF functions into a library like KHSO ?


    SergeD

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

    Re: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge
    So it's possible to implement TKT, legato tool and DEF functions into a library like KHSO ?
    TKT: Yes, you'd just do it in the editor, creating a set of round robin dimensions, then picking and shifting the samples you want to populate them from other velocities and neighboring note regions. The RR could be configured for the best result on each note.

    Legato Tool: There are multiple ways to create legato. One is a modeled/filtered transition, the "Sonic Implants" method. The other is the "Vienna" method, where you'd need session material recorded and edited for each intervalic transition. Unless you have that session material, you'd use the "SI" method (which works pretty darn well).

    DEF: You can use DEF on any material that you convert to one of the 24-bit formats. The good news is that the last update to GS3 reduced CPU overhead for 24-bit material by 20%. This is enough of an improvement to make the tradeoff minimal. DEF works very well in practice, in my experience, mainly in the ability to change timbres along with expression programming to get crescendo/diminuendo effects from what would otherwise be a static-timbre sample. DEF is fairly subtle when you listen outside of the mix context, but in the mix, it's surprising now realistic it can make a tapered release, etc.

    The disadvantage is that none of this is generic in the same way launching a script can be. It requires opening up the editor and changing parameters and mapping in some cases. The advantage is that first, you learn how to program in Giga, and there are hugely powerful ways to update your current libraries. Second, because you're creating a new instrument in effect, you can customize each note to its best, and get a more tailored result.

    So, there are definitely differences in ease of application. I don't want to downplay those.

    There are also great opportunities. The fact is, there are many libraries out there which were recorded and released pre-Giga3, which have every bit as much potential to be "modern" as the newest ones out.

    End users who have the same libraries can trade ART files, and update these things as easily and transparently as trading scripts. So, while the language and the specificity is a little different, there is no inherent reason why GS-3 ART files cannot be as easily traded among users as scripts. The ART files do not break licensing agreements, since a person needs to have the same library installed for an ART file to have any value at all.

    So, basically, if you have some time and energy to invest, you can take your older libraries and modernize them very completely...in ways which make them as good as, or even in some cases, potentially better than, the latest crop.

  5. #5

    Re: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    Thanks for the useful information Bruce.

    Similar to Serge, I've also always wondered about this. GS3 is such a powerful sampler, and even thought I have and use K2, I many a times prefer the awesome power of Giga, but I was just wondering why the K2 scripting is more popular than Art files. If exchanging Art files is similar to exchanging K2 scripts then are there any sites out theres for this, similar to the theokrueger.com site for K2.

    Thanks.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    It's similar. Not exactly the same.

    Many K2 scripts are generic to the library, and "do their thing" on whatever library you have loaded.

    GigaStudio puts that kind of functionality at the instrument design level, so using those programming techniques (and spitting out the resulting ART files to share) are specific to the instrument.

    However, I could not agree more that an ART-file exchange would totally rock, and perhaps I can take this to the next level. I will be happy to host and maintain a download site for them, if people are interested in participating.

    Anyone who is interested, please drop me a line.

    Best regards,
    Bruce

  7. #7

    Re: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    Hi,

    I work each days on KSP script. It's the most advanced soluce i've never seen in a sampler.

    I can do incredible Piano behaviour simulation that's is impossible with other samplers than Kontakt2



    Olivier

  8. #8

    Re: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    Bruce,

    If G3 could be programmed to do, for example, real sympathetic resonance, it might be worth the developers' while to write such an .ART file themselves.

    DavidH

  9. #9

    Re: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    I agree with Bruce regarding the exchange of art files.

    I've reprogrammed some of my libraries to take advantage of iMidi.
    "Sam Horns" ->alternation between 4 staccato samples.
    Maybe I convert it to 24 bit and put the DEF filter for the sustains too

    But what is more exciting to me and a HELL lot of work is to make the performance tool from VSL redundant.

    I started to reprogram OPUS 1. Right now staccato 1+2 are ready for the strings sections.

    Detaches short and long will follow soon.( for Woodwinds and Brass too )

    What is really cool is the stacked modus with the new programming.
    I have 7 articulations including the iMidi staccato on one midi channel ready for keyswitching.

    The last step will be the performance legatos and portamentos.
    I'm experimenting right now to get them to work bit it will take time.

    As I said, lots of work, and after this, I hope to have enough time to reprogram my other VSL libraries.

    If someone is interested in the Sam Horns art file drop me a pm.
    best regards

    Przemyslaw K.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: K2 scripting VS Giga Imidi

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ferris
    Bruce,

    If G3 could be programmed to do, for example, real sympathetic resonance, it might be worth the developers' while to write such an .ART file themselves.

    DavidH
    Soundware vendors say it's hard to justify going into their old libraries and updating them for a new sampler format. There just is not much of a business model for it, considering the return on investment.

    To be clear about programming differences...those piano behavioral aspects, like holding down keys, and exciting resonances with another played key are not possible to program in the Giga 3 environment at this time. When speaking specifically of piano behavior modeling, it's important to point that out. My comments were directed more towards orchestral/wind instruments, since that seemed to be the implied focus of the inquiry.

    I've often thought if we just got together as a group, and systematically assigned reprogramming to anyone who wished to participate, we could transform a lot of libraries.

    For what it's worth, if people are really serious about this (and I think it's a great opportunity), then I think we might consider establishing some common practices.

    For instance, I think it's a good idea to always leave the original programming intact (leaving the "factory original" instruments in the new GIG file, at the top of the list, and adding the new files below). This way, people can maintain backwards compatibility. Even if someone decides to add new features to an already "updated" file, if new instruments are always just appended to the bottom, then the file would always maintain good backwards compatibility.

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
  •