Sorry for a maybe stupid question, anyway:
Instead loading this extremly RAM- and CPU-Power-consuming surround sample set, why not use the (semi-)dry set instead in combination with dedicated different convolution reverb settings for the different output channels?
Beside the primary advantage that the needed RAM and polyphony requirements are significantly smaller, I expect sound improvements. Because in my opinion it is a more realistic model approach if a common reverb engine is applied on the sum of dry samples (for a certain surround channel), instead that every sample in the sample sound mix bears its own reverb. A surround set will tend to sound more muddy this way, in case that many registers are used (all with different and own reverb parts, in opposite to the physics in reality). To have a common reverb (dedicated separately to each output channel) applied to all dry samples which are just used will tend to sound more defined and more clearer (compared with same amount of overall reverb), that is my opinion and also result of - subjective- audio tests.
So the model to have a common reverb model for every output channel (could and should be different ones of course, for the front and rear-channels and whatever other channels you have, subwoofer, body shaker and so on) seems to me the better sounding approach and needs much less PC ressources.
By the way, I checked the (semi-)dry Demo-Sampleset of Groningen. It sounds beautiful to me too, despite the fact that some notes e.g. in the Praestant 8 register are considerably uneven in the voicing and/or in the attack (I assume that is how the original organ sounds). It is up to the user whether that is considered as beeing charming or too uneven to be acceptable. In latter case one could try to fumble with the voicings (would be much effort).
Unfortunately even the extended keyboard range has only 51 keys, only up to d4. Many romantic pieces need more, even for Bach there are works which need e4. Also other famous historical organs, sampled from SP, reach in extended version up to at least f4, like e.g. Zwolle, or even g4 . So I don't see the point to not extend it to the commonly used range only because it is a historical organ (like many others which are extended to that range).
Beside that, really beautiful sounding set (only checked the demoset so far).
/BR Olaf
Instead loading this extremly RAM- and CPU-Power-consuming surround sample set, why not use the (semi-)dry set instead in combination with dedicated different convolution reverb settings for the different output channels?
Beside the primary advantage that the needed RAM and polyphony requirements are significantly smaller, I expect sound improvements. Because in my opinion it is a more realistic model approach if a common reverb engine is applied on the sum of dry samples (for a certain surround channel), instead that every sample in the sample sound mix bears its own reverb. A surround set will tend to sound more muddy this way, in case that many registers are used (all with different and own reverb parts, in opposite to the physics in reality). To have a common reverb (dedicated separately to each output channel) applied to all dry samples which are just used will tend to sound more defined and more clearer (compared with same amount of overall reverb), that is my opinion and also result of - subjective- audio tests.
So the model to have a common reverb model for every output channel (could and should be different ones of course, for the front and rear-channels and whatever other channels you have, subwoofer, body shaker and so on) seems to me the better sounding approach and needs much less PC ressources.
By the way, I checked the (semi-)dry Demo-Sampleset of Groningen. It sounds beautiful to me too, despite the fact that some notes e.g. in the Praestant 8 register are considerably uneven in the voicing and/or in the attack (I assume that is how the original organ sounds). It is up to the user whether that is considered as beeing charming or too uneven to be acceptable. In latter case one could try to fumble with the voicings (would be much effort).
Unfortunately even the extended keyboard range has only 51 keys, only up to d4. Many romantic pieces need more, even for Bach there are works which need e4. Also other famous historical organs, sampled from SP, reach in extended version up to at least f4, like e.g. Zwolle, or even g4 . So I don't see the point to not extend it to the commonly used range only because it is a historical organ (like many others which are extended to that range).
Beside that, really beautiful sounding set (only checked the demoset so far).
/BR Olaf