Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why ??

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by DrStackVanHay View Post
    Mr Boo
    so then when simple eq includes things like impulse response or even resonance modelling what is the point in restating the simple eq thing over and over? What do folks want to say by that?
    kr

    Timm
    Impulse response is really an EQ (if kernel is not big, and delayed signal does not turn to reverb sound), so it is a simple eq.
    Biquad is well known primitive. Stacking 32 biquads in a line is not making it more complex approach.
    The really annoying thing is all these "cool" techy words like "resonance modeling"

    I thought that it would be interesting for you and others, but it seems that my words are somehow annoying to you, sorry about that.
    I'll stop commenting on that subject.

    Actually, the modeling part of my message was in response to this message.
    Originally posted by DrStackVanHay View Post
    yes a cutting edge technology which can reproduce two zones on a drumhead ...
    kr
    Timm
    It can reproduce more zones, but that is not the thing that sells the product.

    Comment


    • #32
      BTW, none of these are cutting edge technology.
      These modeling approaches are as old as the sound sampling approach.

      The only thing that matters is that todays hardware can handle big sampled instruments, but todays physical drum modeling does not advances as great as we all have expected. Look at guitar amp sims for example (all that nonlinear circuit modeling stuff) - that was a leap forward! That is really cutting edge. (axe FX, kemper)

      So it is just a matter of choosing right tools for a task, for a given hardware.
      Your point is that it is great the roland's way, others point is that it is better to go a "stupid simple" way and just sample it all =)
      Personally I don't see any problems here.
      Last edited by Mr.Boo; 06-26-17, 04:35 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Hey Mr. Boo,

        I apologize for being overly annoyed and also for being too aggressive and promise to switch to a more well behaved behaviour.

        Originally posted by Mr.Boo View Post
        I thought that it would be interesting for you and others, but it seems that my words are somehow annoying to you, sorry about that.
        I'll stop commenting on that subject.
        I would really appreciate if we could discuss that a little further because I expect some valuable insights from a discussion with you.
        I´ve some questions and a few arguments pending ...

        That this topic is so annoying is the „madness of the crowds" aspect. As soon as a critical mass was reached everything anybody could say about roland or especially the td-50 was superior insight when it was negative enough or stupid, lightyears behind and irrelevant if it was positive. Culminating in folks connecting their module via xlr to the mic-inputs of their mixer and sending back the module couse it sound so bad over a pa.

        My professional job is being a communications consultant (no contract with roland :-) ) and I clearly see the bashing patterns involved in that discussion and that annoys me. But that is not your fault of course and I have no reason to think that you are a member of the bashing party, so maybe we could reach some reasonable insight?

        In my opinion "simple eq" belongs to this patterns. If one uses "simple" with the meaning of "nothing else" Steven Hawkins is doing simple physics and Paul Bocuse is simply cooking.

        Just use the google image search with "simple equalizer" than you see what I claim is what people connect with the phrase "simple equalizer" what you describe is what acoustic science textbooks name e.g. "qualizers, with greater complexity and precision" wich is language-wise close to the opposite of "simple" (Springer Handbook of Acoustics, 2nd edition, page 807)

        kr

        Timm
        Last edited by DrStackVanHay; 06-26-17, 07:50 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Peter Warren View Post
          Your words:
          "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...)."

          What VST uses modeling?

          "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. "

          This doesn't mean that you think modeling is more realistic than samples?
          Peter, your argumentation is bordering on bizarre, and I can only assume that you are unable to follow what I wrote. For the record, no that does not either say or mean "modeling is more realistic than samples" or anything like it. In fact my comment makes no reference whatever to realism.

          For the record, modelling is when a source or sample is processed to more closely approximate input data (trigger or MIDI data). A pure sample player would require at least one if not multiple separate pre-recorded samples for every possible combination of inputs - including (for instance) every graduation from fully closed HH to fully open HH. To my knowledge no such VST yet exists, so I would say that all VSTs to date incorporate modelling. In fact, the smaller the amount of raw wav data available to a VST, the more scaling, blending, EQ and other sample processing is required to achieve a convincing result.

          I don't expect you to agree, and I don't hope to convince you. However I would appreciate it if you would cease putting words in my mouth.

          Originally posted by Peter Warren View Post
          My guess is that the only reason Roland is still doing the modeling is that they have built their platform on it. They have been doing this type of sound since the 90's and it has not ever been used on recording of merit. Engineers wouldn't even even consider the sounds in a Roland module other than 808 and 909 for electronic music. Judging by the response on the Mimic Strike threads,Roland will need to change their methods. They are losing major segments of the market to Alesis and Pearl.
          It appears to me that Roland are doing fine without your help and despite the best efforts of Mr Boo.
          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by DrStackVanHay View Post
            Hey Mr. Boo,

            I apologize for being overly annoyed and also for being too aggressive and promise to switch to a more well behaved behaviour.



            I would really appreciate if we could discuss that a little further because I expect some valuable insights from a discussion with you.
            I´ve some questions and a few arguments pending ...

            That this topic is so annoying is the „madness of the crowds" aspect. As soon as a critical mass was reached everything anybody could say about roland or especially the td-50 was superior insight when it was negative enough or stupid, lightyears behind and irrelevant if it was positive. Culminating in folks connecting their module via xlr to the mic-inputs of their mixer and sending back the module couse it sound so bad over a pa.

            My professional job is being a communications consultant (no contract with roland :-) ) and I clearly see the bashing patterns involved in that discussion and that annoys me. But that is not your fault of course and I have no reason to think that you are a member of the bashing party, so maybe we could reach some reasonable insight?

            In my opinion "simple eq" belongs to this patterns. If one uses "simple" with the meaning of "nothing else" Steven Hawkins is doing simple physics and Paul Bocuse is simply cooking.

            Just use the google image search with "simple equalizer" than you see what I claim is what people connect with the phrase "simple equalizer" what you describe is what acoustic science textbooks name e.g. "qualizers, with greater complexity and precision" wich is language-wise close to the opposite of "simple" (Springer Handbook of Acoustics, 2nd edition, page 807)

            kr

            Timm
            I just thought that we were talking like technician to technician, so my "simple eq" in no more than a "simple (ordinary) static equalization"
            Opposed to dynamic equalization, with both frequency and amplitudes changing etc, or equalization with a nonlinearity in feedback path etc etc.
            My main point that it is not a secret math or code and could be implemented by an average DSP programmer.
            AS opposed to, for example - good reverb - it is really something near the magic =)

            In my opinion, the main art in all this stuff is how these algorithms are tuned, how samples are recorded etc

            Regarding the negativity around new TD50 - I don't think that it is something to be worried about.
            I mean, internet forums are far from real life.
            Being a software developer I've seen a lot of products that were hated by peoples on the forums but at the same time - showing excellent sale results =)
            And there are some devices with a lot of very good reports (like 2box), but these are not dominating the market.
            Last edited by Mr.Boo; 06-26-17, 09:56 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by CobaltSky View Post

              Peter, your argumentation is bordering on bizarre, and I can only assume that you are unable to follow what I wrote. For the record, no that does not either say or mean "modeling is more realistic than samples" or anything like it. In fact my comment makes no reference whatever to realism.

              For the record, modelling is when a source or sample is processed to more closely approximate input data (trigger or MIDI data). A pure sample player would require at least one if not multiple separate pre-recorded samples for every possible combination of inputs - including (for instance) every graduation from fully closed HH to fully open HH. To my knowledge no such VST yet exists, so I would say that all VSTs to date incorporate modelling. In fact, the smaller the amount of raw wav data available to a VST, the more scaling, blending, EQ and other sample processing is required to achieve a convincing result.

              I don't expect you to agree, and I don't hope to convince you. However I would appreciate it if you would cease putting words in my mouth.



              It appears to me that Roland are doing fine without your help and despite the best efforts of Mr Boo.
              Sorry,I don't seem to follow what you are saying. I took this statement:"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",as meaning that you were telling everyone that modeling produces more realism than samples. It is not the case in my experience. I assume you meant something different .

              Your comment about the hi hat is not my experience with the TD50. There one step from extra tight to tight and I contacted Drew at Roland about it and asked if it could be fixed. That step is too extreme for my uses.

              Sorry if my criticism of the TD50 seems harsh. I owned it and did detailed feedback including video demos.I made suggestions for editing on the forum that some members may not have found themselves. Roland did very well in 2016 with the TD50. They may keep doing well but there is competition now that was never there before. I like to pinpoint areas that I think could be improved.

              Comment


              • #37
                Hello everyone,

                I'm very happy picking up my post from the 02/06/16.... thanks to all for this discussion but meanwhile , Mimic Pro was born . That is the better answer to my question. I will give a last chance to Roland : "Hey Mr Roland, say to me before the end of the year, that a Roland Mimic is on the road to us. If no, the 1rst of january I'll be a definitive Pearl Mimic Pro drummer" . Thanks for all these years of pleasure behind my Roland Kit and TD, a great period after my first french e-drum (1988 : yess i'm an old e-drummer !!!).. very sad but if you doesn't understand our claims from millions drummers...here is where we part ways... So long

                Philippe


                Comment

                Working...
                X