Is the Virtual Instrument era over?

[Chr!s]

I'm not reading 16 pages, but my observation is that the "traditional" idea and market of virtual instruments is over-saturated to the point that making them is arguably a waste of time and resources instead of working towards developing new technologies that eliminate all the input and work that VSTis presently demand.

I've often said, and stand by that a problem with music software and technology is that where most try to take workload off a single person, music technology mostly puts more workload on a single person. Especially if you don't have a band or are a composer who can't afford to hire many live players, having to screw around with MIDI CCs and such really gets to be a huge motivation and buzzkill after enough years at it.

So I think what we are gradually starting to see, is a slow transition towards rectifying this problem via "machine learning" and such, or simply trying to program sample libraries to be more playable "out of the box". I think things like what Noteperformer, Staffpad, and Audiomodeling are doing is the way forward, and will probably replace the traditional idea of "sample libraries" over the next 20 years.

So I don't think the Era is "over" yet, but it is a dead horse that people won't stop beating.

[_leras]

[quote=Chr!s post_id=8541907 time=1666758948 user_id=466309]

I'm not reading 16 pages, but my observation is that the "traditional" idea and market of virtual instruments is over-saturated to the point that making them is arguably a waste of time and resources instead of working towards developing new technologies that eliminate all the input and work that VSTis presently demand.

I've often said, and stand by that a problem with music software and technology is that where most try to take workload off a single person, music technology mostly puts more workload on a single person. Especially if you don't have a band or are a composer who can't afford to hire many live players, having to screw around with MIDI CCs and such really gets to be a huge motivation and buzzkill after enough years at it.

So I think what we are gradually starting to see, is a slow transition towards rectifying this problem via "machine learning" and such, or simply trying to program sample libraries to be more playable "out of the box". I think things like what Noteperformer, Staffpad, and Audiomodeling are doing is the way forward, and will probably replace the traditional idea of "sample libraries" over the next 20 years.

So I don't think the Era is "over" yet, but it is a dead horse that people won't stop beating.
[/quote]
Perhaps you could have read a bit more. You seem to be focusing on only your needs and workflows.

Suggesting that a staff notation tool is the future is probably way off base for most people here. If anything electronic music, and virtual instruments, have allowed people without formal music training to make music.

Very few are likely scoring their music.

Even if things are oversaturated there are always better ways to do things. Whilst there are some great virtual instruments and people.have been making music with them for 15-20 years, it's only just getting started if you ask me.

[BONES]

I've often said, and stand by that a problem with music software and technology is that where most try to take workload off a single person, music technology mostly puts more workload on a single person. Especially if you don't have a band or are a composer who can't afford to hire many live players, having to screw around with MIDI CCs and such really gets to be a huge motivation and buzzkill after enough years at it.

I've been doing this for 40 years and I haven't had to "screw around with MIDI CCs" since my hardware days. When you work ITB, all that stuff just happens. The process is as simple as you want to make it. I see people all the time who seem determined to make it is complicated as humanly possible.

Honestly, if you need 100+ tracks to make something work, it's either a really terrible idea that's never going to work or you're doing it wrong. People seem to forget that all The Beatles albums were recorded using 4 or 8 track tape and anyone should be able to make a great song with those kinds of limitations.

[Markus Krause]

The Alpha Junos have a digitally controlled oscillator which is different to a digital oscillator. DCO stands for "Digitally Controlled Oscillator", and is an analogue oscillator that has a digital clock to control it. A DCO produces an analogue waveform, not a digital stepped waveform.

Please don't missquote me. I clearly wrote that it comes with a DCO. And I see a DCO more on the digital side than on the analog one. Especially the one from the Alpha Juno.

First of all any digital hardware synth produces an analog output. There is always a DAC that converts numbers to voltage.

Also, a DCO does not really sound analog. It is missing some of the typical analog charcteristics like drift. A cheap DCO can also have ugly digital artefacts. My Kawai SX240 (it has a DCO) is suffering from heavy aliasing when you play high notes. Aliasing does not exist in the analog world.

Furhermore, the Alpha Juno OSC does not work like conventional DCO. It's more complex, has more digital components and is not limited to outputting a simple sawwave. It can do a wide variety of square and comb waveforms.
It is an impulse wave generator driven by a chip with a counter. It outputs a digital 0 or 1 (1bit). This output combined with a flipflop (digital) can be used directly for the squarewave generator. So this kind of squarewave is purely digital. There is no need for analog components at all.
The other more complex waveforms like the combs and PWM are also digital as they are combinations of XOR/AND/OR gates (which are also purely digital). You can see them as digital waveshapers.
At some point the digital signal runs into an opamp. You can see this like a primitive 1 bit DAC.
Only the sawtooth is partially analog. It uses an integrator circuit (a 6dB lowpass with very low cutoff) in series to the ouput of the digital impulse signal.

[Chr!s]

I've often said, and stand by that a problem with music software and technology is that where most try to take workload off a single person, music technology mostly puts more workload on a single person. Especially if you don't have a band or are a composer who can't afford to hire many live players, having to screw around with MIDI CCs and such really gets to be a huge motivation and buzzkill after enough years at it.

I've been doing this for 40 years and I haven't had to "screw around with MIDI CCs" since my hardware days. When you work ITB, all that stuff just happens. The process is as simple as you want to make it. I see people all the time who seem determined to make it is complicated as humanly possible.

Honestly, if you need 100+ tracks to make something work, it's either a really terrible idea that's never going to work or you're doing it wrong. People seem to forget that all The Beatles albums were recorded using 4 or 8 track tape and anyone should be able to make a great song with those kinds of limitations.

I'd invite you over sometime to fire up any of my orchestral libraries, or solo instruments like say the Violin from Ancient Era: Persia and let's just say: If you can make that sound like a realistic, decent-sounding, string performance without having to touch CC1, 11, 2 for vibrato control, another for speed control, another for portamento control, and then keyswitches to add ornamention, change articulations, etc.

I will be very impressed — to put it mildly.

[syntonica]

Honestly, if you need 100+ tracks to make something work, it's either a really terrible idea that's never going to work or you're doing it wrong.

Late German Romanticism will get you every time!

But I do see people demoing their dance songs with 20 drum tracks and 40 vocal tracks and whatever nonsense. I'm not sure they're necessarily doing it wrong, per se, but they're definitely overthinking it.

[dellboy]

The Alpha Junos have a digitally controlled oscillator which is different to a digital oscillator. DCO stands for "Digitally Controlled Oscillator", and is an analogue oscillator that has a digital clock to control it. A DCO produces an analogue waveform, not a digital stepped waveform.

Please don't missquote me. I clearly wrote that it comes with a DCO. And I see a DCO more on the digital side than on the analog one. Especially the one from the Alpha Juno.

First of all any digital hardware synth produces an analog output. There is always a DAC that converts numbers to voltage.

Also, a DCO does not really sound analog. It is missing some of the typical analog charcteristics like drift. A cheap DCO can also have ugly digital artefacts. My Kawai SX240 (it has a DCO) is suffering from heavy aliasing when you play high notes. Aliasing does not exist in the analog world.

Furhermore, the Alpha Juno OSC does not work like conventional DCO. It's more complex, has more digital components and is not limited to outputting a simple sawwave. It can do a wide variety of square and comb waveforms.
It is an impulse wave generator driven by a chip with a counter. It outputs a digital 0 or 1 (1bit). This output combined with a flipflop (digital) can be used directly for the squarewave generator. So this kind of squarewave is purely digital. There is no need for analog components at all.
The other more complex waveforms like the combs and PWM are also digital as they are combinations of XOR/AND/OR gates (which are also purely digital). You can see them as digital waveshapers.
At some point the digital signal runs into an opamp. You can see this like a primitive 1 bit DAC.
Only the sawtooth is partially analog. It uses an integrator circuit (a 6dB lowpass with very low cutoff) in series to the ouput of the digital impulse signal.

I did not misquote you. Here is your quote.......

@Markus Krause said "It's both. It has a digital osciallator (DCO) and an anlogue filter."

You said that a DCO is a "digital oscillator". You seem to be standing by that assertion.

[gaggle of hermits]

arguing the toss over DCOs is serious bizniz as any fule no.

[jamcat]

Honestly, if you need 100+ tracks to make something work, it's either a really terrible idea that's never going to work or you're doing it wrong.

Yeah, I never understood that either. What are they doing, close miking a symphony orchestra?

(Which would fall under “doing it wrong.”)

[_leras]

I'd invite you over sometime to fire up any of my orchestral libraries, or solo instruments like say the Violin from Ancient Era: Persia and let's just say: If you can make that sound like a realistic, decent-sounding, string performance without having to touch CC1, 11, 2 for vibrato control, another for speed control, another for portamento control, and then keyswitches to add ornamention, change articulations, etc.

I will be very impressed — to put it mildly.

You are in a small subset of virtual instrument users using orchestral instruments. I'm sure there is a lot of room to keep expanding this type of functionality, but equally a very small (if potentially better paid) user base. (tv ads? tv dramas etc). You're in a niche of a niche!

I think most people here are talking about discussing the sound quality and scope of synths.

I also cannot recall when I last had to care which cc I needed to use for a virtual synth, I just map the control and get on with it. Hardware synths can still take a bit more looking up the cc in a table though...

[jamcat]

I use physically modeled orchestral instruments, just because I like the sound of real strings in my music. Sometimes a quartet, or sometimes an entire string section. SWAM instruments need many parameters to be automated at all times.

I joked about close miking a whole orchestra, but actually with SWAM solo instruments, you need one instance for each virtual player (and you need to place them on a Virtual Sound Stage, too.)

Still, I’ve never come close to 100 tracks.

[tony10000]

"What a Long Strange Trip It's Been..."

[Markus Krause]

I did not misquote you. Here is your quote.......

@Markus Krause said "It's both. It has a digital osciallator (DCO) and an anlogue filter."

You said that a DCO is a "digital oscillator". You seem to be standing by that assertion.

I did refer to the Alpha Juno. Read my above post and try to understand it.

[tony10000]

I did not misquote you. Here is your quote.......

@Markus Krause said "It's both. It has a digital osciallator (DCO) and an anlogue filter."

You said that a DCO is a "digital oscillator". You seem to be standing by that assertion.

I did refer to the Alpha Juno. Read my above post and try to understand it.

This is pretty interesting. It sounds like the Alpha Juno did use an actual digital oscillator with a DAC rather than a DCO.

I found this article on Wikipedia (for us electronic geeks):

"This article refers specifically to the DCOs used in many synthesizers of the 1980s [why?]. These include the Roland Juno-6, Juno-60, Juno-106, JX-3P, JX-8P, and JX-10, the Elka Synthex, the Korg Poly-61, the Oberheim Matrix-6, some instruments by Akai and Kawai, and the recent Prophet '08 and its successor Rev2 by Dave Smith Instruments.

"Relation to earlier VCO designs

"Many voltage-controlled oscillators for electronic music are based on a capacitor charging linearly in an op-amp integrator configuration.[1] When the capacitor charge reaches a certain level, a comparator generates a reset pulse, which discharges the capacitor and the cycle begins again. This produces a rising ramp (or sawtooth) waveform, and this type of oscillator core is known as a ramp core.

"A common DCO design uses a programmable counter IC such as the 8253 instead of a comparator.

"This provides stable digital pitch generation by using the leading edge of a square wave to derive a reset pulse to discharge the capacitor in the oscillator's ramp core."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitally ... oscillator

[dellboy]

Sequential market their Rev 2 synth as being analogue, and yet it has DCOs.