The idea that daws sound the "same" has been refuted fairly well by previous commenters. I'll add that using sample libs is arguably the most likely to sound similar if users record with them in their natural state, and not work at developing a unique sound with the same base material. Example. My main working libs set is the Sonic Implants Orchestral collection (I have others, but this is the meat and bones i work with daily), which i've owned since it was first released, in gig format. (And linuxsampler is my closest friend and ally in the linux audio world for playing them) In their "factory" state, the orchestral instruments and sections are recorded in situ, meaning they're recorded with a built in stage presence. At first glance, it would seem that every muso using the SI collection is going to get the same end result, i.e. the oboe always sounds like this, the flute has a slightly sharp top C, etc. Sounds ok, until the muso realizes that his oboe masterpiece will have exactly the same sonic signature as the next muso, unless he does something to change that. This goes for notes as well, where a detached G4 oboe note for example, will always start and stop exactly the same. (in general) And this is where the notion of OOTB falls flat. The sample libs are an instrument, in effect, and just like a live player or players, they need to be learnt as an instrument, with many hours practising not just playing technique (orchestration should be a prerequisite for this), but manipulation skills, where tools and plugins like EQ, and IR space, give the user a chance to uniquely stamp his style on the standard set. Manipulating the base set is the real skill set required, to have your own signature, and is essential to avoid the "same" sound as many others who don't perceive these skills are important. As a further quick example, i have 2 flutes, one of a different tone than the other. I will mix them in an orchestral project, alternately and together, but i will also, where it is merited, and usually when the flute line is exposed in some way, add a little mid and take a little off the top in EQ to differentiate the base samples from the rest of the project. So to imprinted presence. Earlier sample libs manufacturers feted this as a feature, but it wasn't too lonf after that that users assumed they were trapped by this, and manufacturers started taking a different approach, where IR samples were added separately to sample sets, with a text or data file loaded into popular samplers, enabling users to more directly control the direction and strength of ER, and tutti IR. Nevertheless, imprinted samples can be manipulated to quite some degree to minimise or change the imprinted IR, albeit with quite a bit of effort, often by panning and doubling sections to different stage locations with an addition IR, narrowing both fields to minimise the imprinted effect. This sounds totally at odds with assumed perspectives of "traditional" IR, ER and EQ, but hey, if it works... As a former orchestral player, and with a formal music education, the knowledge i gained was invaluable in writing score, putting together orchestral projects, etc. But when using "factory" sample libs on a computer, a completely new set of skills was required to project that unique sonic image. I know most of you are electronica based, and by preference, but imho, the same principles apply. ZynaddsubFX as an example, comes with preset banks, and if one is experienced in using this fine app, you can almost figure out which preset the user has applied, if "nothing" is done to the preset, the same as factory sample libs. (The same is true for sample libs. "He's using SI, or VSL, or Project Sam", etc) It's the users job to be the muso, and consider the preset, or sample lib as the START point, from which lots can be done to develop one's own sound. It's not the end result, unless the user chooses that, by any stretch of the imagination, and in the hands of users who are willing to go on from the factory standard, it's possible to depart almost completely from the notion of this is AMSynth, this is how it "sounds...." I would hope that this short note provides another view for users, and possibly devs, with the mindset of a synth or sample set being the "finished" product. This may seem like stating the obvious, but i've heard many pieces over quite a few years from home users and professionals alike, where they write something assuming the result to be the finished article based on factory settings, and then wonder why it sounds the same as so many others, using the same tools, without a perceivable difference in sonic style. As a final comment, in the process of writing this, i respectfully suggest devs building plugins, VIs, and hosts consider this as well. The more tools you add (and make the process of using them as quick and efficient as possible, the easier the process of integrating manipulative tools like midi integration with controls you've built (for just one example), and the more hosts provide the mechanisms and framework that enables the users to depart even further from "factory" beginnings, the greater chance the user has to enjoy a much greater creative opportunity to express him or her self, in creating his or her unique sonic signature. Alex. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
