NI release FREE Kontakt 3 Player

[psishock]

I'm seeing it differently. Tracker will give one the basic controls, that would mostly use, and don't need (or very little) knowledge what is actually happening with the sound using the embed tracker effects. Example Hxy gives vibrato, Yxy gives panbrello, Gxy portamento but one only need to write down a note, the effect in the rows, don't need to mess with setup, preset, routing the modulators or do anything else, the algorithms will take care of everything in the background. So, for a beginner, it could look easier to work with the embed effects (than messing with all the technical stuff like routing, lfo-s, automation, ect ect), but if one wants to break out from the fixed (thus limited) embed effects, may find the open world of VST more comfortable and accessible.
Yes, with embed effects, one is only able to control some details of the sounds, within some reasonable borders, there a number of stuffs that just cant be done sticking to them.

[Saga Musix]

I'm seeing it differently. Tracker will give one the basic controls

Not really. In theory, a tracker with samples gives you a much more sophisticated control over each note than a VSTi - You just need a hell lot of samples. For example, you can use a different sample for each note in the pattern so it would be as "natural" as a VSTi, that often sounds different with every note that you play. However, you can't tell the VSTi to not sound so natural - but you can tell the tracker by just using one of the many samples. You can have both "modes" in a tracker, it's just more work. The VST may safe you a lot of work, but it is not as variable normally.

[PPH]

Yes, even your "old" stuffs satisfies me, most of them can't even be downloaded because of 404, but from what i've heard, they're quite powerfully composed indeed. I think if you work with "live instrument" samples, like the orchestral ones, you can bypass the vsti-s without any handicap, because there are a very specific way how should they "sound", mostly you don't want to alter that, every instrument has it's characteristic sounding.

Thanks for letting me know. I'll upload them somewhere else. What you say regarding instruments is true. Still, most good sample libraries come As VSTi. So, in the end, I'm stuck with the VSTi anyway. But I can work with lower quality samples as placeholders because live instruments are "standard", so even if the samples don't sound exactly as they should, I know how they will sound when I change the samples. In the case of synths, part of the work is producing a timbre, and also variations in timbre (with filters, for example). So, unless you're using the instruments as if they were live instruments, it's better to have a VSTi.

[psishock]

Not really. In theory, a tracker with samples gives you a much more sophisticated control over each note than a VSTi - You just need a hell lot of samples. For example, you can use a different sample for each note in the pattern so it would be as "natural" as a VSTi, that often sounds different with every note that you play

You can easy setup a random, sine or any other waveform LFO to automate your controls in you VSTi within any desired range (usually that is what i'm doing, with some custom envelope setup too), surely that is much more sophisticated than using a terribly huge samplepack to "simulate" this process. Further more, you still need to generate or get all those samples from somewhere (for every different song O_O, if you plan to use different stuff on them), in VSTis you only need to setup the desired range of change (of course, you need to know what are you doing, and how can you reach that).

However, you can't tell the VSTi to not sound so natural - but you can tell the tracker by just using one of the many samples.

There is nothing more easier to set the VSTi to sound "not so natural". You don't need to set any automation, modulators, unsion detuning, effects, lfo-s, just play the pure (or some mixed) waveform. If will sound simple as a chiptune sound. Or, as some looped "tracker" sample (depends from the waveform complexity), because basically it will be just a looped waveform too with no other modulators.

You can have both "modes" in a tracker, it's just more work. The VST may safe you a lot of work

Well what is the point in making your life (much) harder on purpose? Also i have no idea were can you get or store a sample pack of that complexity, were every sound on every instrument will change within desired range. Proly would en up rendering out each of then, from hardware or soft synths, for every process (song), but then again, why to make life harder?

[LPChip]

Why is this topic turning into a sample vs VSTi debate?

Both are great for specific tasks and you can combine the power of both in your song.

I for once would use a VSTi that can sample, so I can use the mixer functionality of Xlutop Chainer (Something I still miss in OpenMPT, good mixing capabilities). For no other reason though, cus the samples in OpenMPT is great. True, you can't multi-sample on the same note, which is another plus for VSTi's if I were using that functionality, but I'm not X)

[Saga Musix]

Further more, you still need to generate or get all those samples from somewhere (for every different song O_O, if you plan to use different stuff on them), in VSTis you only need to setup the desired range of change (of course, you need to know what are you doing, and how can you reach that).

We're not talking about what is easier to do here.

Why is this topic turning into a sample vs VSTi debate?

Because it's always a very good topic for flamewars! :evil:  :lol:

[psishock]

Why is this topic turning into a sample vs VSTi debate?

It's always a good thing to share thoughts about stuff, we can even teach, and learn from each others points. This is a friendly debate, we always do this here and there. Why turned out here? It was a natural phenomena, i could turn out anywhere. x)

We're not talking about what is easier to do here

Oh... oh, ok, i though we did , must be my memory, its getting rusty in these old times.

[LPChip]

I'm not saying that its a bad thing that this turned into a debate, Just pointing out that it strayed a bit away from the original topic.

[psishock]

Too late LP, you've already scared the children away.

[Louigi Verona]

All of the above discussion is superficial in a way because it assumes that all VSTi are what people involved have seen. But a VSTi is just a format and it can be just a sampler or a synthesizer, it can give you almost no control over the sound or the most detailed control over every bit of sound. I have seen VSTi that have no synthesis whatsoever and which just use layered wave samples, just like a soundfont would. I have seen VSTi with inbuilt sequencers which allow you to write the whole sequence inside of them and then you just fire it up when needed.

So the debate VST vs. wav is, strictly speaking, not a valid one. It's like arguing what's better - html or handwriting. (not the best analogy though)

The other thing is that a lot of the VSTi available are not samplers and usually do not actually offer the desired control. However, that has nothing to do with what VST is by itself. It has something to do with implementation in each particular case.

[LPChip]

All of the above discussion is superficial in a way because it assumes that all VSTi are what people involved have seen. But a VSTi is just a format and it can be just a sampler or a synthesizer, it can give you almost no control over the sound or the most detailed control over every bit of sound. I have seen VSTi that have no synthesis whatsoever and which just use layered wave samples, just like a soundfont would. I have seen VSTi with inbuilt sequencers which allow you to write the whole sequence inside of them and then you just fire it up when needed.

So the debate VST vs. wav is, strictly speaking, not a valid one. It's like arguing what's better - html or handwriting. (not the best analogy though)

The other thing is that a lot of the VSTi available are not samplers and usually do not actually offer the desired control. However, that has nothing to do with what VST is by itself. It has something to do with implementation in each particular case.

Actually, the discussion was, why use Kontakt Player if you can use samples directly in MPT.

[Saga Musix]

I can not judge on something that has not been made yet, though. ReViSiT doesn't combine the world of trackers and VSTi audio processing as far as I can tell.