Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why ??

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why ??

    1) Is there anybody to explain me, why Roland does not still use real samples regarding the computers capacity nowdays ?
    2) Why brands of electonic drums does not still use 16 or 32 bit converter to have 256 or 1024 levels sensibility?

    Thanks



  • #2
    1). I think Rolands approach is more about editability of the sound. Electric drums, whilst imitating a lot of features, aren't acoustic drums and I think Roland embraces the slight difference rather than trying to make an acoustic kit with a volume knob. I believe Roland view electric drums in the same way theres a difference between acoustic and electric guitar.
    2). Midi code is done in levels from 0-127 (128 total variables). What you are asking is the reinvention of midi code to a more advanced system, which I'm not sure if there is any use for. Combine your 2 ideas and you are asking for a minimum of 256 samples per drum per sound, which is crazy amounts of storage for samples.

    Synthesis always starts off rusty, but eventually gives some great options. Maybe not as good as the real thing, but certainly way cheaper and easier. For guitarists re-amping in DAWs started off crap, but now its kinda split decision for many artists whether they re-amp with a PC simulated cabinet or whether they draft out the real thing. The real thing disadvantage is lugging out a huge amp cab, sticking it in a closet with all the insulation, mic-ing it right - it's all expensive as hell... so much extra work. The simulated option is far cheaper ultimately, and will eventually close the gap!
    Last edited by Myrk-; 02-09-16, 10:03 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Good points from Myrk, and discussed ad nauseum in other threads... mainly the ones relating to new modules!
      DTX700, A2E Dixon kit, Yamaha cymbals, FSR HH Kit Pix

      My new venture: voglosounds.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Piloute View Post
        1) Is there anybody to explain me, why Roland does not still use real samples regarding the computers capacity nowdays ?
        2) Why brands of electonic drums does not still use 16 or 32 bit converter to have 256 or 1024 levels sensibility?

        Thanks
        I agree with Perceval. Myrk said it well.

        In regards to changes in the foundation of the MIDI code, that's on the way. It's was released at NAMM 2015, is formally known as "HD Protocol", and has been nicknamed "MIDI 2.0" and is back compatible with MIDI.

        That said, many agree that MIDI is perfectly sufficient for 99% of musical instruments on the market today. One simple reason is this: a code with 128 individual values has enough resolution to exceed human abilities to detect them. Think about it: play a note with a velocity of 56 and another with a value of 57. Hearing experts agree that you simply can't discern one from the other. Most would be unable to tell the difference between 56 and 59, but perhaps that's where it begins to be detectable. The same applies to other parameters that affect tone, ADSR, etc. 128 is actually a very large number in relation to human perception, so there's no benefit whatsoever to increasing the resolution.

        So, that's the situation for modern day electronic instruments. What HD Protocol offers are additional means of modulation of the sound and new functionality that doesn't yet exist in instruments on the market today. It's about building a foundation for the future and offering developers new tools to invent.

        I think you'll see HD Protocol embedded in future eDrums because the complexity of what happens with acoustic drums just can't be replicated with MIDI, and we all know edrummers, by and large, want our edrums to emulate acoustics. HD offers a new, more complex, platform from which to build something new.
        Pearl Mimic Pro. Also, TD-11 triggering VSTs

        Comment


        • #5
          Maybe 10 years off at least I reckon for that in edrums... typically the E-drum market's technology is pretty archaic - dumbingly so in my opinion! We only got USB connectivity 5 years or so ago haha!

          Comment


          • #6
            Many thanks for your answers.

            But I think, as Myrk said, that E-drum market is really archaic today, nothing new since the 2000's when I bought my TD10. Then I bought my TD20 with expanded card and V-expression kits.. and I'm always waiting something really new since that time ... ;-(((


            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Piloute View Post
              Many thanks for your answers.

              But I think, as Myrk said, that E-drum market is really archaic today, nothing new since the 2000's when I bought my TD10. Then I bought my TD20 with expanded card and V-expression kits.. and I'm always waiting something really new since that time ... ;-(((
              Funny Piloute - I'd have said pretty much the opposite - that things have moved ahead considerably since the 2000s, and it's now quite a different world. As part of that, from where I stand both your questions are focusing on the wrong things.

              Samples are one of several ways to make drums sound like acoustic drums, in fact the easiest, yet most limiting and cumbersome (requiring a vast library of pre-recorded hits in order to simulate expression and dynamism). But making a kit sound exactly like an acoustic set is is only one of the potential aims (in fact in most studios a great deal of processing is done to make recorded acoustic drums sound *less* like straight up acoustic drums do) - and besides, even then samples aren't the only way nor necessarily the perfect way. In the past, samples may have been the best of the available options for making digitally simulated drums sound close to acoustic drums, but the edge they once had is diminished, if not approaching irrelevancy (and in fact most high end sampling VSTs now include quite a lot of modelling to bridge the gap from the other side...).

              And all of that only applies when the aim is solely to replicate authentic acoustic drum sounds - for any/all other purposes (of which there are many), samples have long tended to take second place to modelling. In many genres of music (pretty much all contemporary - as opposed to deliberately 'retro' - styles, and even some retro styles), a blend of acoustic and electronic percussion sounds is now the norm.

              Alongside all that, Roland's current flagship offers onboard ability to blend recorded samples with modelled sounds - something which many of us have done using third party products for years. This combines the best of both worlds. And alongside that, the modelling capabilities of the latest modules are a long way ahead of the TD-10 and TD-20 and can produce more expressive and useful sounds to suit a range of contexts. Add to that the fact that the latest triggering (esp. the digital triggers, but also the best of breed of the current analog triggers) is a lot more subtle and nuanced than early generation systems, and it's really quite a different experience.

              Meanwhile, focusing on the number of levels of note/velocity dynamics in the MIDI protocol misses the point IMO. Whenever I've found someone complaining about a lack of dynamics in their high end eDrum setup (even the earlier models), it's become clear that the culprit has been mismatched trigger sensitivity settings (eg so that most or all of their hits were registering as a "127". A few quick tweaks to get the bulk of their louder strokes registering between 75 and 120 and its a transformed experience. It's tough to blame the tools if you haven't set them up appropriately to begin with, but that's exactly what many folk do.

              When an electronic instrument is setup and used to deliver the full range of dynamics that the current systems support, there's no shortage of subtlety and expression. In fact few people (even those with trained ears) can reliably discern increments in stroke velocity as small as 128th, much less 256th, even with a lone/soloed instrument. In the context of a mix (or even a whole kit soloed), even less so. It's certainly not something that is holding us back and it's *really* not the issue you are making of it. ; )
              Last edited by CobaltSky; 06-15-17, 09:55 AM. Reason: typo
              TD-50KV extended kit with KD-A22 kick, DW pedals/stands. SPD-30 and SPD-SX. TD-30 for additional triggers & layering. Muse Receptor 2+ Pro w/ SD v2.4.4.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Piloute View Post
                1) Is there anybody to explain me, why Roland does not still use real samples regarding the computers capacity nowdays
                I asked Roland rep earlier after Td-50 release, I only told him, why not 4 or 5 sample imports and still used on internal Roland structure, he answered would be expensive to do and need to rewrite everything. The problem with modeling, you are mixing synthesis system with drums, not plugs and play, too much wide, these are made for engineers, have knowledge on frequency\filters and experienced with audio mixing to get sound right, outside the headphones. How many time, we saw guitarist using terrible sound, awful frequency with a band, and you are still end up lacking on the translation with sound dynamic and overall sound experience, if you don't have enough raw sample on instruments and instruments list, you will struggling with the sound in general. Most mid range Roland vdrum are the best seller for reason and sound like their flagship.

                You don't need hd midi to get over 1-128, volume change, ddrum module in the 90's was using 1-1000 velocity, but the fact is, to really notice the difference you need many sample, as example, using 8 sample with larger velocity don't make real noticeable things, It's only volume change with 8 sample, don't worth until your ears can notice them.
                Last edited by Chris K; 06-14-17, 01:09 PM.
                [www.mimicpro.com ][ www.dwdrums.com ] [www.zildjian.com]

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hey,

                  Originally posted by CobaltSky View Post
                  When an electronic instrument is setup and used to delivery the full range of dynamics that the current systems support, there's no shortage of subtlety and expression. In fact few people (even those with trained ears) can reliably discern increments in stroke velocity as small as 128th, much less 256th, even with a lone/soloed instrument. In the context of a mix (or even a whole kit soloed), even less so. It's certainly not something that is holding us back and it's *really* not the issue you are making of it. ; )
                  with one noteworthy exception I think. If you process the velocities the situation can easily get worse. If you send your 128 velocities to a VST which uses a velocity curve you will easily end up with 50 or so velocity levels and some regions may have really sparse population with velocity values.

                  I donīt know how ddrum managed to put 1000 velocity levels through midi, the midi 1 standard does not allow this since cc#88 is 7 bit, but the 317 velocity levels Roland transmits using the high res cc#88 might be of some use for those applications. Since right now no vst supports cc#88 making use of this would be a little bit of a makeshift but if you would do your curve in the host (I only now Logic, would be easy to do with it) and send the result to the vst plugin it would be possible to avoid that loss in resolution.

                  kr
                  Timm

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DrStackVanHay View Post
                    Hey,



                    with one noteworthy exception I think. If you process the velocities the situation can easily get worse. If you send your 128 velocities to a VST which uses a velocity curve you will easily end up with 50 or so velocity levels and some regions may have really sparse population with velocity values.

                    I donīt know how ddrum managed to put 1000 velocity levels through midi, the midi 1 standard does not allow this since cc#88 is 7 bit, but the 317 velocity levels Roland transmits using the high res cc#88 might be of some use for those applications. Since right now no vst supports cc#88 making use of this would be a little bit of a makeshift but if you would do your curve in the host (I only now Logic, would be easy to do with it) and send the result to the vst plugin it would be possible to avoid that loss in resolution.

                    kr
                    Timm
                    Agreed - some curve mapping in VSTs (and some other software interfaces) does mess with the dynamics, and it can be a bear to correct.

                    While that may eventually become a non-issue with expanded (HD) protocols, it's still not really a valid shortcoming with current modules as such. It's more a systems integration snafu that arises when porting/passing data between different platforms and technologies.
                    Last edited by CobaltSky; 06-15-17, 02:15 PM.
                    TD-50KV extended kit with KD-A22 kick, DW pedals/stands. SPD-30 and SPD-SX. TD-30 for additional triggers & layering. Muse Receptor 2+ Pro w/ SD v2.4.4.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CobaltSky View Post


                      Samples are one of several ways to make drums sound like acoustic drums, in fact the easiest, yet most limiting and cumbersome (requiring a vast library of pre-recorded hits in order to simulate expression and dynamism). But making a kit sound exactly like an acoustic set is is only one of the potential aims (in fact in most studios a great deal of processing is done to make recorded acoustic drums sound *less* like straight up acoustic drums do) - and besides, even then samples aren't the only way nor necessarily the perfect way. In the past, samples may have been the best of the available options for making digitally simulated drums sound close to acoustic drums, but the edge they once had is diminished, if not approaching irrelevancy (and in fact most high end sampling VSTs now include quite a lot of modelling to bridge the gap from the other side...).

                      And all of that only applies when the aim is solely to replicate authentic acoustic drum sounds - for any/all other purposes (of which there are many), samples have long tended to take second place to modelling. In many genres of music (pretty much all contemporary - as opposed to deliberately 'retro' - styles, and even some retro styles), a blend of acoustic and electronic percussion sounds is now the norm.
                      I don't see any evidence of modeling being more realistic than samples. Please post a video that illustrates this.I have owned every Roland TD module.
                      Major recordings use acoustic drums with possible sample layers of real drum recordings added from slate trigger or drumagog,or through Midi conversion in Pro Tools to VST. Some use entirely electronic 808 or 909 type sounds. I cannot find any major record or indie that uses Roland TD sounds.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Peter Warren View Post

                        I don't see any evidence of modeling being more realistic than samples. Please post a video that illustrates this.I have owned every Roland TD module.
                        Major recordings use acoustic drums with possible sample layers of real drum recordings added from slate trigger or drumagog,or through Midi conversion in Pro Tools to VST. Some use entirely electronic 808 or 909 type sounds. I cannot find any major record or indie that uses Roland TD sounds.
                        Agreed.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Roland uses real samples,
                          but weak ones in order to give you edit options which are based on eq and compression
                          Compare it with a broth. You can make tomato soup from it or a vegetable soup or chicken soup

                          The better the sample (cymbals for instance) the less edit options you have
                          From a decent tomato soup you can.t make a chicken soup, or it would be chicken-tomato which we don.t like
                          Choosing for weak samples is Rolands policy to seduce us with the edit options

                          The Roland technique isn.t like real modelling either. Otherwise we could make and mix more complex structures like on modelling synths.
                          We can.t mix a snare drum model with a china cymbal model.
                          there is only some modelling on the cymbal swell and positional sensing
                          but the sounds are samples
                          Robert

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Peter Warren View Post

                            I don't see any evidence of modeling being more realistic than samples. Please post a video that illustrates this.I have owned every Roland TD module.
                            Major recordings use acoustic drums with possible sample layers of real drum recordings added from slate trigger or drumagog,or through Midi conversion in Pro Tools to VST. Some use entirely electronic 808 or 909 type sounds. I cannot find any major record or indie that uses Roland TD sounds.
                            I have no idea what you are talking about, Peter.

                            I don't see anything in the passage you quoted that says "modelling is more realistic than samples". You seem to have missed my point.
                            TD-50KV extended kit with KD-A22 kick, DW pedals/stands. SPD-30 and SPD-SX. TD-30 for additional triggers & layering. Muse Receptor 2+ Pro w/ SD v2.4.4.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              there was a time when it was 'top of the line' technology.. like with TD-10 or TD(w)-20.. roland to me is much like a convolution reverb.. using an 'impulse' sample from a drum or snare and putting this through a number of envelope's, which can be programmed/ edited.. 10 years ago all memory was much smaller, and this seemed a way to go..
                              roland kept on this route and tried to improve it.. but in the long run.. became limited by their own technology .. the samples that can be modelled can't be made bigger
                              (or they would have done this) to be run through the v-modelling chips .. (they are only kilobytes..) ..and probably with bigger samples you don't need any modelling..
                              now 'gigabyte' multi layered samples is cutting edge technology.. and roland/yamaha modelling is old school .. how long can they still compete like this ? i don't know..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X