Which instruments are the ones we can't fully replicate in the VST format...yet?

[BONES]

In strumming though it's more than the sequencing and the triggering of the samples, it's how the strings vibrate and interact (especially on acoustic, but also to an extent for clean electric) to produce the resonance of the overall sound - more than the sum of its parts.

Which is why they record the full strum 100 times, each played slightly differently, rather than recording each string separately and then trying to combine them in a convincing manner.

The other thing is also the faffing factor - to get something half-decent programmed on acoustic takes ages, for something I could play and record in a few minutes.

That's for you but the only time I've ever picked up a guitar in my life was to smash it to pieces on a concrete floor so any amount of faffing about that leads to a result is way less hassle than learning how to play an actual guitar.

Good luck trying to imitate the individual guitar playing style on a vst , there are literally a million possibilities how the the player hits the strings , not everyone use a damn plectrum
It's exactly this part that gives each player a unique style.

If you think about it, it's also exactly why it's so easy to make a convincing guitar instrument. Because there is so much diversity, you only have to land it in the ball park. OK, so I won't have the same opportunity to mimic any particular individual but if you want realistic guitar parts in your songs, you can have 'em easily.

A few years back I was on top of my guitar playing style , a mixture of flamenco exciting all strings with all finger ( nailly part ) in a downward movement , hitting back with the thumb moving upwards finalised hard plucking with individual fingers . muting unmuting indiviula strings with the left hand ..in a nutshell

And those are just the kinds of things the expensive guitar libraries allow you to control. All they need to do is sample someone playing that way and it's there for anyone to use. All those years you spent practicing were, it turns out, a waste of time. Get over it.

Funny that you mention it... It doesn't sound like it is being played by a real human being. It sounds monotonous by comparison.

What does? Most of the Shreddage stuff sounds completely real and utterly convincing. Nobody would be able to pick it from a real guitar in any blind test.

Even rhythm guitar or distorted solos sound dull compared to the real thing. Rhythm guitar can have so much nuance, groove, style...

No, they don't. All you need to do is sample someone playing it and it's available to everybody. And again, "nuance, groove, style" are all about performance so you can sequence those things in easily. Even the Ujam guitar instruments have Push/Pull, which I assume is automatable, so you can have your rhythm guitar drift in and out of time very subtly or push your lead part forward to give it more energy and impact. It's all quite trivial and when you get people like Stephen Lispon endorsing it, you know that it really works and you guys are just clutching at straws.

[revvy]

Always good to hear a guitar expert speak, very informative. I bet you smashed that f**ker on the floor with real aplomb.

[jancivil]

I don't want to get too deep into this argument, but I agree that a genuine rhythm guitar performance can be terrifically hard to replace, depending on how crucial it is to the overall effect and vibe. It's one thing (out of two) I called someone to do it for realsies. And this made the track. It made doing the drums for it a whole different experience than it was with my scratch track.

The other was a soprano sax solo; which brings me to extended techniques and real expressive playing on an instrument where it matters (piano can be 100% virtual, no one's the wiser) are not really feasible for the most part. Now, I have done an avant-garde soprano sax solo in the Key Editor people believed, but it was a Herculean effort to get there; and simply not in the same league as what my guy did in the remote session for 100 bucks.

[Tj Shredder]

You can't even get a piano into a keyboard. Open up the lid and start playing inside. Any acoustic instrument has extended playing techniques which are over and over renewed and enhanced. It will always be like the difference between a sampled synth and the synth itself. You can't grab all possible nuances even with terabytes of samples. And extended playing techniques are always directly connected to a personal expression and emotion.
Of course you can record a performance or construct something to fake a performance, but then there is no relation to the place you play it back. A realtime performance always can make that connection and react to another musician or the audience for example.

Undoubtedly you can't get a Cracklebox in the box...

[Jkist]

Any instrument that is incredibly expressive is going to be hard to do digitally. Thats why drum and piano libraries largely get by without too much fuss. Both are incredibly expressive, but most of their expression comes from dynamics, which can be sampled and replicated with relative ease.

However, slurs, slides, mutes, rhythmic syncopation, growls, ornaments, etc. These things are way harder to do in a way that will sound natural. For that reason, really expressive instruments that use such techniques are nearly impossible to get just right. There are companies that do a damn good job, and they sample every little nuance. Its very convincing, but its not perfect, and the discerning among us can USUALLY tell if we hear the instrument solo. In a mix it can be masked.

But some instruments seem just about impossible to really get right. Saxophone is one of those. The only way to get really human, organic sounding lines is by using loops of an actual human playing, pretty much. SWAM instruments gets damn close with their modeled Sax, but its still obviously synthesized. But it sounds very musical in its own right, so I still love it.

But yeah, maybe there will be some breakthrough in technology that will take modeling to the next level. Its probably on the horizon already.

[AcrossTheSky]

Any instrument that is incredibly expressive is going to be hard to do digitally. Thats why drum and piano libraries largely get by without too much fuss. Both are incredibly expressive, but most of their expression comes from dynamics, which can be sampled and replicated with relative ease.

However, slurs, slides, mutes, rhythmic syncopation, growls, ornaments, etc. These things are way harder to do in a way that will sound natural. For that reason, really expressive instruments that use such techniques are nearly impossible to get just right. Like Bones said, there are companies that do a damn good job, and they sample every little nuance. Its very convincing, but its not perfect, and the discerning among us can USUALLY tell if we hear the instrument solo. In a mix it can be masked.

But some instruments seem just about impossible to really get right. Saxophone is one of those. The only way to get really human, organic sounding lines is by using loops of an actual human playing, pretty much. SWAM instruments gets damn close with their modeled Sax, but its still obviously synthesized. But it sounds very musical in its own right, so I still love it.

But yeah, maybe there will be some breakthrough in technology that will take modeling to the next level. Its probably on the horizon already.

I look forward to it - I think it's the future.

the Audio Modeling SWAM vsts are amazing BUT hey - maybe because they are quite expensive
- companies producing - sample based libraries - are still making profits -
- Imagine Physical Modeling taking over for good - a loooot of jobs will be affected.

[gentleclockdivider]

A few years back I was on top of my guitar playing style , a mixture of flamenco exciting all strings with all finger ( nailly part ) in a downward movement , hitting back with the thumb moving upwards finalised hard plucking with individual fingers . muting unmuting indiviula strings with the left hand ..in a nutshell

And those are just the kinds of things the expensive guitar libraries allow you to control. All they need to do is sample someone playing that way and it's there for anyone to use. All those years you spent practicing were, it turns out, a waste of time. Get over it.

Dude , please get you head out of your arse , if you can't play the guitar why even try to discuss if your only references are sampling libraries and destroying guitars ?
I am not talking about basic strumming or even fingering , but advanced playing techniques , no sample library + genius scripting will ever give you that , no matter the cost .
You're not a dumbass but you're verry narrowminded + tiny bit of dunning/kruger ( halfway the curve )
Take off them steampunk goggles , it blinds you

[kocio21]

I'll just low key chime in on the topic. I played guitar in bands for 15 years and now I'm avid user of virtual guitars.

So they CAN sound good but there is no way that somewhat knowleadgeable would mistake them for real guitars. Especially if they are primary instruments in the mix. Acoustic chord based stumming can be done pretty well and Ample Sound guitars are great in this, provided they are backed off behind other stuff in a mix.

Distorted metal styles also work pretty good as long as it is new metal, becasue this new styles sound more artificiality on purpose. Recreating something like 80 heavy metal is harder.

Impact Soundworks guitars from Shreddage series (especially Hydra) are definitely the best for distorted things, the rest of competitors are far away. Every so called "metal" guitar on the marker has far to few round robins for muted chugs. And also Shreddage guitars can be used for all genres.

Now there is a lot covered there like release noises, random noises, pick sound etc. Many perfectly sampled articulations but... it is gargantuan effort to program this to be even slightly convincing. Every note obviously has to have slightly different start time, velocity etc. That can be to some degree done with DAW randomize function. But there most of the time you have to manually pick the string for each note because algorithms used in VSTs are still bad at this. A lot of notes, especially longer ones should added slight vibrato etc. I can program even low gain blues lick and it would sound ALMOST convincing but programming 30 seconds of this kind of performance can take me over hour of work. And then in harder music guitar tracks are usually recorded up to 8 times (4 left, 4 right) and you can't just copy/paste it for obvious reasons so you are stuck with 3-4 hours of brain melting job to make 30-60 second of guitar tracks that will be "almost" very good. Ain't nobody has time for that.

And it would support the take that it is about performance and amount of work mainly if not for legato transitions. Holy shit. I can't get convincing legato slides with this stuff. It's just super limited and fake soundings. Hammerons and pullofs too but not as obvious. Slides are my bane, and more so because I love slide heavy solos. Every time someone claims that they managed to do good sounding slides and show me demo I'm like "Ewwww, take that away". They never sound even remotely convincing.

So yeah. Guitar can be done. Hide it slightly in a mix or heavily distort it, spend fuckton of time programming it and don't use legato transitions.

[sjm]

... a soprano sax solo; which brings me to extended techniques and real expressive playing on an instrument where it matters (piano can be 100% virtual, no one's the wiser) are not really feasible for the most part.

In a similar vein of expressiveness, solo jazz trumpet/trombone, especially cupped. While I think you can get away with background parap paraps from a VST, we're nowhere near being able to replicate the performance of a good solo player.

And +1 on guitar generally sounding pretty meh programmed. Even if it's possible, it's most definitely a pointless time sink. It takes exactly 3 minutes to play a 3 minute guitar part. It takes many orders of magnitude more time to program a convincing 3-minute guitar part. So while it might be theoretically possible to get close (I've heard some impressive guitar programming), it's definitely not a good use of your time. It's much quicker in the long run to just learn to play the guitar and invest those hours of programming into practice instead. The pay-off will be there in a couple of years, and it's infinitely more fun too

[andi75]

Does anybody know a convincing Didgeridoo VSTi?

[sbj]

This is one of the most convincing performances I've heard.

But as one of the comments say:
- Can he play it with his teeth -

https://youtu.be/jh-hzbG5FzI

[robpasta]

Cowbell. There's nothing like the real thing.

I second this

[jancivil]

a piano [...] a keyboard. Open up the lid and start playing inside. Any acoustic instrument has extended playing techniques [...]

NB: I said a piano "can be" strictly from virtual and pass. {I should have emphasized contrasted with the context I was speaking to, a guitar and actual particular differences of touch which are not present in *keyboard* playing. Rather than conflate it with 'extended techniques' as it looks like there.}.
There are a terrific number of things one can do with percussion, a drum kit or what-have-you that is in no way available except by hand but this doesn't mean you can't make a perfectly cromulent virtuosic drum performance via MIDI note-ons and maybe a little bit of variable CC hihat control. Or go with a sample of the cymbal rolls or other performances in orch percussions.
While a basic reggae [or funk] rhythm guitar part - nothing special - can turn out to be simply more work than is feasible, to get recognizable realism w. it.

[BONES]

Dude , please get you head out of your arse , if you can't play the guitar why even try to discuss if your only references are sampling libraries and destroying guitars ?

Because 99% of the music I love and listen to every day is full of guitars, so I know at least as well as any guitar player what a f**king guitar sounds like.

I am not talking about basic strumming or even fingering , but advanced playing techniques , no sample library + genius scripting will ever give you that , no matter the cost .

So it's not something you can record, then? Because "sampling" is the same process as "recording", therefore any performance you can capture in a song you can capture equally well in a sample library. That's the very basis of the Ujam guitar plugins - you don't sequence the performance, you sequence triggers that play pre-recorded phrases. Someone else is doing all the playing, I just choose which riff I want to hear.

You're not a dumbass but you're verry narrowminded + tiny bit of dunning/kruger ( halfway the curve )
Take off them steampunk goggles , it blinds you

You might want to take a bit of your own advice because if you'd bothered to check out any of these instruments, you'd know what they have to offer and you'd be agreeing with me.