f



Best computer-based sampler for a Windows-based PC?

What is the best computer-based sampler for a Windows-based computer?

I have a PC-based system, and have heard of GigaStudio for the PC, but
am not sure whether it's the best available for a PC.

My goal is to be able to record the realistic acoustic grand piano
possible, and also very realistic strings.

Thanks in advance.
0
fan
2/27/2005 10:10:01 AM
comp.music.midi 3004 articles. 2 followers. Post Follow

5 Replies
1173 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 21

In article <at63211td7flf0o09abme01i45d41h3f1k@4ax.com>,
 fan <fan@fan.com> wrote:

> What is the best computer-based sampler for a Windows-based computer?
> I have a PC-based system, and have heard of GigaStudio for the PC, but
> am not sure whether it's the best available for a PC.
> My goal is to be able to record the realistic acoustic grand piano
> possible, and also very realistic strings.

 Giga is probably the reigning champ here for PCs. I have a friend in 
Seattle who is still wowed by his and more than a few pros rely on it 
heavily. The available Giga library is quite potent and gets new 
additions at respectable intervals. I'll leave it to you to research the 
virtual pianos, as that is a very subjective topic relative to general 
sound quality and key-to-sound issues that depend on your choice of 
controllers and personal taste. 

 Giga is not cheap, nor are the additional modules, but I have heard it 
in action and its a worthwhile investment. Again, the bigger the host 
computer, the better, since it is a STREAMING instrument, so be mindful 
of that aspect. There's little worse than a choking computer, unless its 
a cat horking a hairball into your house slipper. 

--

 HellPope Huey
   Praise the Lord and pass the gallstones        

   God appoints our graces
      to be nurses to other men's weaknesses.
         - Henry Ward Beecher
   
   "Every time Jesus shuts a door,
      He opens a window."
   "Yeah, so we have something to jump out of."
       - "Saved!'
0
HellPope
2/28/2005 3:30:51 AM
Thanks, HellPope Huey, very much for your good advice. I have another
question for you along these lines.

I'm going to invest in GigaStudio and a new, powerful PC (at least 3.2
GHz with 1 Gig RAM - do I need more?) with the goal of recording my
piano-playing along with a sampler-based orchestral accompaniment
(heavy on the strings). Also, I'll be doing some pop/rock
rhythm-section type of recording of 3 and 4 minute songs, again all
sampler-based.

I'll be playing-in all the instruments (all, including my piano, will
be sampler-based - nothing "real") and would like to be able to mix
them in the computer sequencer without any external mixer, if
possible. What is the best PC-based sequencer to achieve this? Have
assumed that the newest Cubase might be, but would appreciate your
feedback. Thanks.


On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:30:51 GMT, HellPope Huey
<Grinningbastard@warp8.zoom> wrote:

>In article <at63211td7flf0o09abme01i45d41h3f1k@4ax.com>,
> fan <fan@fan.com> wrote:
>
>> What is the best computer-based sampler for a Windows-based computer?
>> I have a PC-based system, and have heard of GigaStudio for the PC, but
>> am not sure whether it's the best available for a PC.
>> My goal is to be able to record the realistic acoustic grand piano
>> possible, and also very realistic strings.
>
> Giga is probably the reigning champ here for PCs. I have a friend in 
>Seattle who is still wowed by his and more than a few pros rely on it 
>heavily. The available Giga library is quite potent and gets new 
>additions at respectable intervals. I'll leave it to you to research the 
>virtual pianos, as that is a very subjective topic relative to general 
>sound quality and key-to-sound issues that depend on your choice of 
>controllers and personal taste. 
>
> Giga is not cheap, nor are the additional modules, but I have heard it 
>in action and its a worthwhile investment. Again, the bigger the host 
>computer, the better, since it is a STREAMING instrument, so be mindful 
>of that aspect. There's little worse than a choking computer, unless its 
>a cat horking a hairball into your house slipper. 
0
fan
3/1/2005 11:30:42 AM
In article <f3k821tnm3s7ehlecs1b3ofdpr4t889rma@4ax.com>,
 fan <fan@fan.com> wrote:

> Thanks, HellPope Huey, very much for your good advice. I have another
> question for you along these lines.
> 
> I'm going to invest in GigaStudio and a new, powerful PC (at least 3.2
> GHz with 1 Gig RAM - do I need more?) with the goal of recording my
> piano-playing along with a sampler-based orchestral accompaniment
> (heavy on the strings). Also, I'll be doing some pop/rock
> rhythm-section type of recording of 3 and 4 minute songs, again all
> sampler-based.
> 
> I'll be playing-in all the instruments (all, including my piano, will
> be sampler-based - nothing "real") and would like to be able to mix
> them in the computer sequencer without any external mixer, if
> possible. What is the best PC-based sequencer to achieve this? Have
> assumed that the newest Cubase might be, but would appreciate your
> feedback. Thanks.

 The honest answer is that there IS no "best" sequencer, just several 
good choices that take different approaches. Each has a unique 
"personality" for getting to the same place. I am using Cubasis VST and 
will probably move up to Cubase SE or SL because those are as powerful 
as they need to be for my purposes. I simply like Steinberg's approach.

 However, just as many would say the same for Logic (which has a 
somewhat steeper learning curve but is said to be more personally 
configurable), Digital Performer or the ubiquitous Pro Tools. I have a 
friend who moved from DP 4 to DP 5 and is well-pleased. Another is 
devoted to Cakewalk. You may never need surround sound or a QuickTime 
movie panel, but the big-boy programs sometimes offer updates for modest 
fees, so that's a thing to consider. These are usually not bug fixes as 
much as the addition of certain welcome amenities.  

 If you're going to use GigaStudio, it makes the most sense to take on 
one of the powerhouse progs like Cubase SX or Logic 7, but if you can 
honestly say that 48 tracks will do, you can spend hundreds of dollars 
less on a "junior" version. It sounds as if you are working in a more 
acoustic/orchestral realm than a Pink-Floyd-sized rock or dance mindset, 
so 48 might be plenty. It would also be wise to consider the number of 
slots available for plug-ins, VST being the largest general format for 
them, though not the only useful one. You can acquire many useful 
utilities that way, from freeware reverbs all the way up to killer ones 
like AltiVerb and a thousand oddities in between.  

 The PC config you mention should be plenty, but make sure and read up 
on the system requirements first. Too much RAM is always the right 
amount, heh. While you should develop an orderly approach to laying down 
tracks, it can make a big difference to have those added 8 or more, 
often simply for thickening or making an accenting moment stand out. I 
just doubled a tubular bell bit at the end of a phrase and it brought it 
up to the right level nicely when the single instance was a bit too 
thin. Greater volume isn't always the answer; sometimes doubling for 
harmonic complexity is. 

 In addition, songs of a mere 3-4 minutes are easy to manage. I often 
end up rambling away until I hit 6 or 7, so remember that it takes 
about2 megs per minute of stereo sound. If you do the smart thing and 
install an outboard HD as well, esp. 120-180 gigs, you'll have both a 
backup for your hard-won audio and memory "headroom" to spare.  

 You now owe me $5 and a corned-beef sammich. 

--

 HellPope Huey
    I like to gouge wattled matrons with sporks

    I do not have a psychiatrist
      and I do not want one,
    for the simple reason
      that if he listened to me long enough,
        he might become disturbed.
           ~ "Carpe Noctem, If You Can",
                Credos and Curios 

    My father had a profound influence on me.
      He was a lunatic.
         ~ Spike Milligan
0
HellPope
3/1/2005 5:17:56 PM
For better string recordings, go to www.zeta.com
They have nice violin, cello, bass type bowed midi controls.

0
notejam
3/3/2005 5:29:47 PM
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.music.makers.synth.]
On 2005-03-01, fan <fan@fan.com> wrote:
> Thanks, HellPope Huey, very much for your good advice. I have another
> question for you along these lines.
>
> I'm going to invest in GigaStudio and a new, powerful PC (at least 3.2
> GHz with 1 Gig RAM - do I need more?) with the goal of recording my
> piano-playing along with a sampler-based orchestral accompaniment
> (heavy on the strings). Also, I'll be doing some pop/rock
> rhythm-section type of recording of 3 and 4 minute songs, again all
> sampler-based.

	3.2 ghz cpu is nice, but it might be overkill for what 
	you want to do. definitely go for more than 1 gb of ram
	if you are that seriously into sampling, and also invest
	in two serial ata disks - one for system and applications,
	and the other one for audio data. both with 8 mb cache.

> I'll be playing-in all the instruments (all, including my piano, will
> be sampler-based - nothing "real") and would like to be able to mix
> them in the computer sequencer without any external mixer, if
> possible. What is the best PC-based sequencer to achieve this? Have
> assumed that the newest Cubase might be, but would appreciate your
> feedback. Thanks.

	the one that fits your way of working. currently, most
	obvius choices would be cubase (which i use and love a lot)
    	and sonar. logic would be great too if it was still being
	available for pc. you might also try fruity loops and tracktion.
	cubase is somehow the closest to the real enviroment
	(especially the mixer).
	
-- 
now all give tribute to g.c.coleman!
0
Tomislav
3/9/2005 1:46:02 PM
Reply: