Re: [Linuxsampler-devel] velocity (was: LinuxSampler BUGS to fix (Christian & others))

[Mark K. <mar...@co...>]

On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 07:01, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 04:53, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 19:46, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > > > Ok, the latter might be a bug, I will check that. Regarding the 
> > > > velocity<->volume mapping this is not yet implemented, but I will add that 
> > > > next.
> > > 
> > > I wondered what would be the best way to implement it... how do other
> > > samplers handle this issue?
> > 
> > This, I think, is pretty key. If people are using a library under GSt,
> > and bring that library to LS, then they have a right to expect that it
> > will sound substantially the same, and I think that if it doesn't, they
> > won't continue to use LS.
> 
> Ok but the goal of linuxsampler isn't to clone gigasampler, it's just to
> provide full gig support. :)
> If the proposal i mentioned is ok and goes beyond Gst, that's only a
> good thing(tm).
> 
> Marek

Right, not a clone. It doesn't have to look anything like GSt. It does
have to *Sound* like GSt.

If LS doesn't play gig files so that they sound substantially the same
as GSt then $$$$$ of dollars of gig files are useless to people that use
GSt today. People write music based on what it sounds like. If they are
using GSt and try this tool, they expect it to do everything GSt does in
the audio realm. They are naturally going to compare how the Garritan
library sounds, or how their favorite piano sounds, etc. If they don't
sound the same I predict 98% of the potential users will just go away.

Don't underestimate the importance of this. Not only are we asking GSt
users to get a completely new computer to run this program, but we are
asking them to load it with an operating system 99% of them have never
used, and then run this program and listen to the results. The results
had better be *really* good or it will be quite a disappointment.

- my 4 cents...

Mark