"Classical Piano" Library

Bravo Simone.!!! I listened with interest and it seems very good to me... but "every cockroach..."

Thank you for the public thanks, which I will also present to Aunt Marina.

It has been a precious experience for me that will stay within me. I hope our listeners like it too. "With the heart", yes, because we can never produce something and/or attempt to do it if we don't first "feel" strongly what we want to do. Naturally, this is not enough. We must seek the right path and here, the opinion of others, apart from expertise and the means employed, can suggest other "adjustments" to the journey.

Enjoy the listening and thank you

Paolo

Compliments!

Quick question... but is it possible to have/try them in VST format somehow?

It sounds great Simò, I listened to it with PC speakers so nothing comparable to a proper pair of headphones or an adequate sound system.

I would like to "make" you a proposal but I think you've already taken a look; at Native Instruments there are job opportunities for those who know how to manage VST scripting and more,

and obviously I can't do it because I have no knowledge in the IT field, and that is why I asked you for that information about books or tutorials on programming languages,

but things are getting tough without having any basics, and I knew it.

Anyway, try to see, maybe you could collaborate with them remotely; if I were capable of it, I would have done it in a heartbeat, because ultimately it's always a matter of creativity, and where

there is creativity, there is stimulus.

It has a nice sound in headphones, clearly something to try under one's own hands :-)

Until the thesis discussion, I cannot disclose anything. Afterwards, I will put a free version online available to everyone upon registration on this site. The intention is to create several others in the future for commercialization, taking many other parameters into account.

Wow!

Congratulations, it seems very fluid to me and perfectly suited to the "classical" style.

I really like the atmosphere created, though I don't know if it is the result of the sampling or additional reverb added.

Well done everyone.

Hi Gorino, thank you. Having recorded in an untreated environment, I then slightly processed the files in post-production to soften the acoustics a little bit, but the reverb you hear is the plugin running on the VST. I have set up a 3-band EQ in insert with remote control on the user interface, a reverb in send with remote control on the user interface, and then in the background run a non-modifiable envelope filter and a limiter at -0.3 dBFS just before the output.

On Thursday, I am going to the recording studio to equalize everything properly and set the default parameters on a reference system. If I have time, I would also like to include the possibility of choosing between different presets. I am still undecided whether to name the presets by composer... For example, the "Mozart" preset contains the filter settings to obtain a sound that is best suited for performing Mozart, and so on for the other composers. Or whether to do as in other libraries, "concert grand", "mellow", and all the various names that describe their timbral qualities. I don't know, I still have to decide. Actually, the first idea could be an innovation, and having based this library on the classical piano, it might work... What do you say?

Stunning...!!! Even if one cannot judge from a single listen, it seems better to me than any other sampled Steinway.

Very beautiful Simone!

It could be interesting to compare it with a playback made with another well-known and high-level VST, if you find the time...

I will have to do it. My samples are on a hard drive that I lent to Paolo; as soon as I have time to see him, I will also do this test. Keep in mind, however, that I already did this comparison yesterday in the recording studio on ADAM S3-A. The sounds from the other libraries sounded very plastic by comparison. I cannot mention the brands, but I assure you they are veeeery well-known VSTs...

TheSimon wrote:

I will have to do it. My samples are on a hard drive that I lent to Paolo; as soon as I have time to see him, I will also do this test. Consider, however, that I already did this comparison yesterday in the recording studio on ADAM S3-A. The sounds from the other libraries sounded very plastic by comparison. I cannot say the brands, but I assure you they are veeeery well-known VSTs...

i imagine

> Recordings made at 88.2kHz - 24 bit

> Saving samples with resampling to 44100Hz, 24 bit

What is the reason for making a recording at 88.2 and then decimating it to 44.1?

the correct term is decimation and not resample; resampling is another technique usually used for non-integer ratios between frequencies,

and involves both decimation and interpolation of samples.

For example, if I go from 48kHz to 44.1kHz, the ratio is:

48/44.1 = 1.0884....

Whereas in the case of integer ratios, only decimation is used, i.e., a low-pass filter followed by the physical removal of samples....

But why not directly make a 44.1 version?

What is the advantage of using a higher frequency and then cutting samples?

Resampling means bringing the sample rate from one certain value to another, so, it is true, in this case it is more accurate to use the term decimation, but it is not an error to define it as resampling since it is nonetheless a resampling process.

For the rest, I answer your question with another one, however giving you a hint...
Why, in your opinion, have professional recording studios migrated towards ProTools HD 192 kHz systems if the resulting products must be 44100 Hz for music productions and 48000 Hz for cinema? Not to mention that sampling at 192 kHz actually implies being able to reconstruct sounds up to a frequency of 96 kHz according to the Nyquist theorem, and we are well above the audible band...
To think of the answer, think of images. In audio, in reality, besides the parallel with images, another behavior also occurs.

Maybe it's because I woke up this morning with a terrible flu, but nothing comes to mind...

Let's draw a parallel with graphics. If you have to work on an image, you prefer to have it in high resolution. Imagine having a photo for a photomontage. We remove the subject's head from one photo and put the head of another person, assuming we have the same dpi for both images. When I go to attach the image of the head from one photo onto the other, I will have to slightly blur the edges so that the photo looks as real and unmanipulated as possible; in short, I must eliminate the typical sharp break between the two images. Then, later, I will resize the image according to my needs by scaling it down to a size that can be used, for example, within a web page. By scaling it, that photo already contains the blurring effect I applied; therefore, if significant differences were not noticeable when large and the image looked real, it will look even more so when small. The same thing happens in audio... If we start from very high sample rates, when we apply effects that modify the sound anyway (and these samples have seen extensive use of effects and plugins for audio restoration and denoising), even slightly perceptible changes will become imperceptible once resampling to the desired frequency is performed. Furthermore, unlike images, in audio phenomena can occur in non-audible bands that result in effects within the audible band. I could also add that if we play a 20 kHz sound on a speaker system, we don't hear it, because the ear (in theory) can hear up to 20,000 Hz, but in reality, reaching 17,000 Hz is already quite a lot... In any case, we will experience discomfort and headaches. So, even though some things are not in the audible band, they still produce effects, even unconsciously. (This comes from recent studies in acoustics and psychoacoustics).

In short, as you can see, in the audio field there has been a need to sample at very high frequencies to reproduce signals well beyond the audible band to have management sensitivity without losing useful information perceptible to our auditory system. Why choose 88.2? Because normally in resampling or rather, in decimation, as you rightly recalled, it is preferred to use integer multiples of the final sample rate because in this case, as you well said, no noise is introduced since the quotient between the starting frequency and the target frequency is an integer. If we had to produce for cinema, we would certainly have sampled at 96 kHz or 192 kHz.

High-resolution audio is essentially a market and marketing requirement, but there are absolutely no scientific data proving a perceptible qualitative superiority.

In fact, most of the time it is worse; however, do not treat me like a beginner, I am an electronic engineer

I discuss these things every day with my professors, electronic engineers, and electroacoustic system manufacturers, so I know very well what I am talking about... If we want to dot the 'i's, I am an engineer too...

The argument regarding market demand that you are making is completely false. The CD standard is imposed at 44100 Hz and this is a fact; for cinema, it is 48000 on DVD media, so the market only needs these two formats. According to market needs, machinery capable of sampling at 44100 and 48000 would have been enough, but give me a valid reason why the invention of 192 kHz converters is useless and we can talk about it as much as you want...

I don't even agree with the fact that 192 kHz sounds worse, but as I repeat to you, I would like some statements to be justified. Said like this, they are somewhat nonsensical. To me, it is as if you were saying that a 4000 x 3000 photo looks worse than a 1024 x 768 one. The thing "sounds" quite strange to me.

P.S. Obviously by appropriately adjusting the zoom to see them at the same size, otherwise the point is lost.

Well, what can I tell you, it seems a bit like the race for Gigahertz (faster CPUs) that reigned years ago in computers, all marketing in favor of CPU manufacturers.

I find the parallel with images inappropriate; hearing is one thing, and sight is another.

44.1KHz is more than sufficient for audio applications. The rest is a placebo effect, or suggestion, or marketing as I told you