Daniel did it again - Rhino "Textures" Teaser

[jens]

I know what your point was, but your point means you missed the point of this bank

[tony tony chopper]

means you missed the point of this bank

enlighten me

[jens]

Rhino uses the samples (which can be multisamples as well) like oscillators - thus making something like a very powerful sampler out of the same synth which also competes to your synth - you yourself used Kontakt as an example for a potential competition -
let me translate:

Rhino (which currently costs 100euros) competes
with your synth which costs 179$ - your synth isn't capable of dealing with samples at all

The same synth (Rhino) also competes to Kontakt (according to you).


Thus (although I guess it must hurt) you f**ked yourself up the arse.

[tony tony chopper]

The same synth (Rhino) also competes to Kontakt (according to you).

no, according to me it doesn't compete with Kontakt, since it doesn't stretch samples (what the author of this bank seems to need).

It indeed uses samples as oscillators, as you say. So the question is: why feed it with samples that are far from oscillators, considering it's not made for, and that a sampler is better?

[whyterabbyt]

gol quoth So the question is: why feed it with samples that are far from oscillators, considering it's not made for, and that a sampler is better?


Most of us with an open mind would be able to work out that having a synth which is also capable of utlising samples allows for interesting sound-creation possibilities. Obviously either that concept escapes you somehow, which seems somewhat of a limitation for an audio software developer, or you're merely trying to imply that Rhino's architecture is somehow 'inferior' because it has this flexibility, which would be a somewhat biased stance for a competing audio software developer.

[tony tony chopper]

for interesting sound-creation possibilities

Except that no, samples don't offer that sound-creation possibility. Unless maybe, you re-synthesize them (through clever ways, or more commonly additive re-synthesis), but Rhino doesn't do that.

There's not much you can do with a sample, it shows in this thread since the problem of not following the tempo arises.

Rhino's architecture is somehow 'inferior' because it has this flexibility

I'm not claiming that Rhino's architecture is inferior because it can playback samples. I'm claiming that it doesn't make it superior in any way (read: it's a gadget), and when it's used, well you don't get any of the benefits of synthesis anymore.

But I could care less. I only care and messed with this thread just in case, marketing-wise, such soundbanks were used to 'show what a synth is capable of'.
If this ever happened, then every new synth would playback samples, and use great soundbanks to demo themselves, which would make no sense.

I listened to the MP3's - those samples are great. But do they come from Rhino? Certainly a little, but as it sounds, a very little (for the layering & filtering maybe). Were they recorded from real instruments? Or other synthesizers, soft or hard? And/or post-processed? Then maybe you should consider getting these synthesizers. Or use a sampler that could make a better use of those samples, and as you wish, to stretch them.

[Big Tick]

Gol... Why is it things threaten to get out of control everytime you speak up here...

I never designed Rhino as a sampler. The ability to load samples in Rhino was added only recently, and only because many power users asked for it (rather insistently). I actually was quite reluctant to implement this feature, because I knew it would not stand the comparison with "pure-players" in the sampling field: being able to load samples doesn't make it a sampler, as it can't do disk streaming, nor time stretching, nor 64x oversampling with perfect sinc interpolation, and whatever over features already perfectly implemented in high-end samplers - Kontakt, sfz+, ... choose your favourite one.

However, being able to load user-defined samples in the Rhino engine opened up a world of new possibilities - as shown in Daniel's latest bank. Most of his presets combine the additive engine with external samples and tiny bits of FM, resulting in something you wouldn't get in your typical sampler. His clever usage of the user-sliders also adds a lot of playability and variety in his presets - again, beyond anything I could get from the samplers I know.

So, if there's ever a lesson to be learnt, it's that my power users were right. Think about it.

'Tick

[jens]

However, being able to load user-defined samples in the Rhino engine opened up a world of new possibilities - as shown in Daniel's latest bank. Most of his presets combine the additive engine with external samples and tiny bits of FM, resulting in something you wouldn't get in your typical sampler. His clever usage of the user-sliders also adds a lot of playability and variety in his presets - again, beyond anything I could get from the samplers I know.

So, if there's ever a lesson to be learnt, it's that my power users were right. Think about it.

'Tick

but that's where the real fun begins with samplers as well imo - that's what I meant when I wrote:

thus making something like a very powerful sampler out of [it]

[daniel]

Both gol and jens have very valid points, but I'm not insulted by gol's question at all; he's a very direct person which I respect.

Why Rhino and not Kontact or other sampler? Another platform may have been better for what I was doing with "Textures" in the way of tempo syncing long samples; this side of Rhino is still new but will probably be developed further. However, being able to layer 6 oscillators with any synthesized or sampled sound I want was too tempting to not explore. Some of the samples in "Textures" were that of Rhino using 6 osc's now down to one, saving CPU cycles. The root reason for all of this is the joy of creation! Being independent gives me the freedom to create what I want and not be restricted by somebody else's narrow idea of what sounds should populate an instrument.

IMHO Rhino is a fine, flexible instrument capable of doing anything thrown at it. I can do a bank without samples and it be very creative (gol, check out the mp3's for Morpheous on my page). I have a firm idea of where the market is heading and plans for Rhino's future and am simply laying the foundation to meet my goals. Those, I will not share except with 'Tick. Why give other developers a "heads up"?

[tony tony chopper]

I never designed Rhino as a sampler. The ability to load samples in Rhino was added only recently, and only because many power users asked for it (rather insistently). I actually was quite reluctant to implement this feature, because I knew it would not stand the comparison with "pure-players" in the sampling field

It wasn't aimed at you at all. Rhino supporting samples doesn't make it any worse - well Sytrus probably will as well, later.

It was about the misunderstanding in this thread, from what I read some were almost saying that these presets were great (they are) and SYNTHESIZED (they aren't). They're not fully synthesized, close or far from it (you'll tell me), so don't offer the flexibility of synthesized instruments.

[baggio]

Going back to the original question of why he programmed these sounds in Rhino and not Kontakt for instance.

I presume it is because Daniel is confartable with Rhino as a synth and knows what it is capable of, he has already produced a number of other banks for Rhino and has a following for the presets he produces. Finally, I don't care how sounds are programmed as long as they are quality are do their job, so whether the sounds in Rhino are done via synthesis or samples or combination of both it is the end product that is important.

[tony tony chopper]

I have a firm idea of where the market is heading

Well for a few years it's already heading towards 'instrument plugins', that don't need to be defined, and only need to give the user instruments to play with. ROMplers are exactly that, as an example. A single package that the user buys and plays with. Afterall, isn't this the very idea behind an instrument? It surely is. And the user doesn't need to know what the instrument is made of anyway.

My point was only that the WAY the instrument works is rather important when you want to tweak it. The more it's sample-based, the less it's flexible. It was just to point this in a thread in which it wasn't obvious to everyone. And why wasn't it obvious? Because Rhino is marketed as a synthesizer.
That said, I'm really expecting the day a synthesizer will come up with such presets.

[daniel]

I see your point, gol. I'm all for more flexible synthesizers which, you are correct, are more flexible than straight samplers. Right now we're on middle ground and that is so much better than where we were.

[René]

The streaming examples sound awesome. Amazing job guys.


You can't do FM using samples in Kontakt btw.


-René

[daniel]

No FM, no AM no additive, etc, etc...

Ahhh... Rhino is a synthesizer.