Best of all worlds for Sample Set design

[Gert]

Hi,
I tried to make a list of desirable (must, wanted or nice to have) features of Sample Sets.
- Multiple release samples.

- Extended compass (not in graphics, only functional).

- Extra couplers (e.g. Oberwerk-Pedal) when not available.

- Extra 'self made' extended stops (e.g. on Metz)

- Very user friendly stops tab page like Zwolle.

- The contrast between on/off for stops must be very clear (like Forcalquier).

- About 10 combination stops.

- Real time on/off button for Keyboard/pedal sounds and Blower (like Oosterwijtwerd).

- A tab page with Pictures of Organ front, church, console, interior (like sample sets of Sygsoft).

- 1280x1024 as standard size, 1024x768 for support on laptops.

- 2 (touch) screen support (Left- and Right stops page).

- Blower page (like Zwolle, Freiberg and other new sets of Sonus Paradisi).

- Ultra Realistic stops screen like Georgenkirche (with pull out of the stop knobs).

- Configurable crescendo (like Skinner, PAB).

- Pre-configured (by sample set producer) combination stops.

- Non encrypted ODF, so there is a possibility to copy and make multiple configurations (when you have too less RAM) for one sample set.


Probably I forgot a lot...

Best regards,
Gert

[mdyde]

Hello Gert,

- A tab page with Pictures of Organ front, church, console, interior (like sample sets of Sygsoft).

We normally recommend not doing that because it increases memory and loading times. See also my comments in your other post:

http://forum.hauptwerk.com/viewtopic.php?t=4355

- Extended compass (not in graphics, only functional).

- Extra couplers (e.g. Oberwerk-Pedal) when not available.

- Extra 'self made' extended stops (e.g. on Metz)

- Configurable crescendo (like Skinner, PAB).

- About 10 combination stops.

There are always some people who prefer 'extended' virtual organs, and others who prefer accurate models of the real thing. Often sample set producers include both 'extended' and 'originial' organ definitions to try to cater for both groups.

- About 10 combination stops.

- Extra couplers (e.g. Oberwerk-Pedal) when not available.

- ... so there is a possibility to copy and make multiple configurations (when you have too less RAM) for one sample set.

Native support within Hauptwerk for these things (in addition to whatever the sample set provides) is planned as an enhancement for the future.

[Gert]

There are always some people who prefer 'extended' virtual organs, and others who prefer accurate models of the real thing.

Indeed.
But the outcome of PSZ baroque organ extension poll is clear for me.

Also in http://forum.hauptwerk.com/view ... c&start=47
Brett said regarding Metz:

Since no one ever purchases the original version and always goes for the extended version we decided to just offer only the extended version...

Native support within Hauptwerk for these things (in addition to whatever the sample set provides) is planned as an enhancement for the future.

Nice!

Best regards,
Gert

[Stefanussen]

Gert, you bring up an interesting proposal. Perhaps the community should come up with some sort of standard, "Guild of Hauptwerk Organists (GHO)" and all the sample set producers would need to conform to be able to say their sample conforms to GHO specifications ;)

[Csaba Huszty]

http://www.acoustics.hu/index.php/Guild_of_Hauptwerk_Organists

[mdyde]

Hello Csaba/Rob,

Perhaps the community should come up with some sort of standard, "Guild of Hauptwerk Organists (GHO)" and all the sample set producers would need to conform to be able to say their sample conforms to GHO specifications ;)

I think Rob Stefanussen was actually joking?

I have to say that I have some reservations about some sort of standard of functionality/design being defined against which sample sets would be judged, in that opinions vary widely amongst Hauptwerk's users and sample set producers about what's desirable and what isn't, and I don't think it would be fair to say, for example, that a historically-accurate sample set is less 'valuable' in some respect because it doesn't have the extensions/modifcations/modernisations that Gert proposes.

Some people like extended 'modernised' sample sets with modern playing aids (as in Gert's proposed standard), but others (myself included, being just my own personal preference - I fully appreciate and support both schools of thought) happen to prefer accurate models of real instruments.

I think the diversity of approaches amongst sample sets is a strength, rather than a weakness. There are lots of different Hauptwerk users who want different things, and I believe that catering to the preferences of only a subset of those users would be a loss, as well as reducing Hauptwerk's appeal.

[hans0166]

http://www.acoustics.hu/index.php/Guild_of_Hauptwerk_Organists

nice start to be host for the GHO... :wink:

but when the GHO really wants to give it's blessing to sample sets, independency has to be one of first rules....not sure, same as the wiki, this is guaranteed on webspace from a sample maker/seller.

I don't accuse anybody, just want to keep clean interests.

[Csaba Huszty]

I think GHO is generally a good idea even if it was a joke.

First of all, I think GHO can start a communication that makes the whole virtual organ world more acceptable to those who are skeptical. Maybe in the long term it may even help recording more organs, including yes, those dream ones that are monthly asked for a permission by a variety of developers and other companies.

If it ends up in a technically advanced standard based on user votes and developer aspects and if it takes complex issues and options into account, like those that Martin mentioned here previously, it can make sample sets become higher and more consistent quality and users will benefit. On the other hand it may also help Hauptwerk to attract new people and gain more acceptance in the world of real organists since they will realize the difference and understand the goals better. There is no Guild created for something that does not interest people at all.

If it ends up in something partial or not very much useful, it can be good to mention that a particular high quality sample set is not GHO conform. :)

If it ends up in nothing and remains a joke, then there will be no change, and the only drawback would be the database entry that consumed some energy and produced some amount of CO2 gas consequently.

As for my personal view, it would be interesting to see how GHO develops if it develops.

IA and its sample sets have its own methods and procedures based on the standards that we developed in the past five years, but we will not try to make it as a standard because it may be too specific and there may be other good ways too. Naturally, any recommendations or rules cannot be set by any one of the developers, but in communication with users, developers, organists and even pipe organ experts.

The Wiki link may document the process how GHO develops, can host the votes, opinions and the text of the recommendation.

What do you think?

[Gert]

Probably it's good to give a short clarification.

1) proposed standard?????
Martin said :

(as in Gert's proposed standard)

I didn't propose a 'standard', I collected only 'different features from the different sample sets'.
(e.g. I don't propose to add a 'configurable crescendo' and '10 combination stops' for the Prib positive or the Ott organ).

2) I don't want a 're-awake' of the 'extension discussion'.
I'm a person with a positive fundamental attitude and I don't like to give hard criticism. Also I hate nagging.

It's in my opinion the freedom of a sample set developer to construct a sample set to its own preferences.
It's the freedom of users to buy a sample set or not.

I like 'lists', here a list of controversial topics of hauptwerkers:
- Wet / Dry
- Extentension / No Extensions
- Mac / PC
- Direct recorded / Indirect recorded
- Price of sample set

It's not a problem to have different opinions; it's only a problem when you can't respect other opinions.

Best regards,
Gert
www.PCorgan.com

[Stefanussen]

It's not a problem to have different opinions; it's only a problem when you can't respect other opinions.

But what if you're positive your opinion is the correct one? :D

Just kidding... and for the record ...yes, I was being facetious when I proposed the GHO. Not that there's not good things that could come out of such an idea but I'll let others run with that if they want. :)

After the compass extensions thread, I've decided to abstain from those heated threads. I learned the hard way that everyone gets dirty when we start rolling around in the mud ;)

[telemanr]

Rob you're being much too grownup. Every kid likes to play in the mud.

Robert

[cvw]

Hi,
I tried to make a list of desirable (must, wanted or nice to have) features of Sample Sets.

- Non encrypted ODF, so there is a possibility to copy and make multiple configurations (when you have too less RAM) for one sample set.

This is also important for me, but sample set produces MAY follow their own business model, it is up to us to vote with the wallet. However, there should be no fraud: if the producer says that the samples should not be used with CODM or any other selfmade ODF then it is OK, but if the samples are advertised to be usable with another ODF, then one needs some information for using the samples in ones own ODF, namely:

- per-pipe amplitude level, if adjusted individually
- "key-down" times where to switch from one release sample to the other
- pitch related info, which is usually needed for broken ranks such as mixtures (output pitch different for different notes). If the samples are not in tune, you cannot go without this info
- etc.

Normally you would extract such information from the ODF provided by the sample set producer.
So, if the samples are advertised as to be usable with other ODFs beside that one delivered by the producer, this info should be available and should be given separately if the ODF is encrypted.

[B. Milan]

I don't think it's fair to expect that a producer should explain every voicing and balancing modification that went into an ODF. This is a large part of the work for getting an organ to sound its best. If you want the same exact settings then you can simply use the supplied ODF. The CODM use for sets that allow it gives you the freedom to change all of these settings to your liking.

[Sander]

It would be nice if the ODF settings could be used as starting point, so we wouldn't have to voice the complete organ ourselves, if we just want to add some transmission or stops here or there.

[cvw]

I don't think it's fair to expect that a producer should explain every voicing and balancing modification that went into an ODF. .

Let me first stress that for many sample sets, the samples are tuned and need no level adjustment (beyond linear interpolation), such that these samples work fine with CODM or other self-made ODFs. However, to be "fair": if the samples have "individual" tunes and level adjustments and the vendor does not want to disclose the relevant information, it should be clearly stated from the very beginning that these samples are not intended to be used with CODM. Prospective customers just should know what they are paying for.