Any future plans for additional IAPs?

Cause I’ll buy em all!

Comments

  • +1 They really should make a an effort to push this with tons of regularly added libraries

  • I’v been absolutely blown away by the quantity and quality of sounds in all the current IAPs. Super versatile and very few duds.

  • @T4H said:
    +1 They really should make a an effort to push this with tons of regularly added libraries

    It’s easier said than done. I think most app developers make very little money for the vast hours of effort they put in. In addition to planned features for NS2, a lot of requests for other features have been added via this forum. There are only so many hours in the day. Nonetheless, “tons of regularly added libraries” is a nice thought.

  • edited March 9

    @T4H

    speaking of libraries .. i would be very interested in your Massive (and other) Obsidian patches.. did you ever considered to share (or better sell because of huge effort you put into making them ,!).. I would definitely buy them !

    I can suggest you platform http://sellfy.com , very easy to set up, i sold some NS1 banks i made using this platform...

  • @dendy said:
    @T4H

    speaking of libraries .. i would be very interested in your Massive (and other) Obsidian patches.. did you ever considered to share (or better sell because of huge effort you put into making them ,!).. I would definitely buy them !

    I can suggest you platform http://sellfy.com , very easy to set up, i sold some NS1 banks i made using this platform...

    That sounds like a really good idea and I'm definitely considering it! One issue I'm having though is that I didn't normalize the .wavs after recording them from massive etc so now Im having to lower all the volume levels in NS2 (Auv3 instruments, IAP's etc) to match the imported obsidian ones when songwriting 😡. So now I need to Batch normalize the .wavs I guess. Any recommendations on this portion? Do you know if @Blip Interactive has a preparation process of some sort with the IAP sound sets (Normalizing/Maximizing etc) so I can get it to an acceptable standard before distribution?

  • ah overall volume... that's endless story :-) problem is that just normalising doesn't help much... it's more about subjective perception based of particular sound type.. aso it depends on if you're playinh simgle note or 4-5 notes chord..

    I was struggling with this a LOT when inwas working on factory patches... There is no objective reference for "ideal volume", usually my strategy was to set volume the way that for mono patches if single note is played, mixer volume meter stays bellow 0dB.. for poly patches same but when 3 notes are played

    For plain wav notmalization, on Mac i use batch processing using Audacity

  • @dendy said:
    ah overall volume... that's endless story :-) problem is that just normalising doesn't help much... it's more about subjective perception based of particular sound type.. aso it depends on if you're playinh simgle note or 4-5 notes chord..

    I was struggling with this a LOT when inwas working on factory patches... There is no objective reference for "ideal volume", usually my strategy was to set volume the way that for mono patches if single note is played, mixer volume meter stays bellow 0dB.. for poly patches same but when 3 notes are played

    For plain wav notmalization, on Mac i use batch processing using Audacity

    Ahhhhh....glad it isn't just me.

  • I've always found it best to normalize the wav and adjust the patch volume appropriately with all fx, filtering etc. have been applied. Then once its done, its done so you know what you're getting every time you use it.

  • @anickt @dendy so for clarity should I go back and normalize all these .wavs (if so whats a good db threshold .99/.98/.97 etc to generally run with) or leave them as is?

  • @T4H said:
    @anickt @dendy so for clarity should I go back and normalize all these .wavs (if so whats a good db threshold .99/.98/.97 etc to generally run with) or leave them as is?

    I guess it really depends if you want to take the time. Batch processing is your friend! I have no problem normalizing to 0 dB if that’s all that’s available as in AudioShare or NS2. Otherwise -1 dB seems to work fine for me.

  • @anickt said:

    @T4H said:
    @anickt @dendy so for clarity should I go back and normalize all these .wavs (if so whats a good db threshold .99/.98/.97 etc to generally run with) or leave them as is?

    I guess it really depends if you want to take the time. Batch processing is your friend! I have no problem normalizing to 0 dB if that’s all that’s available as in AudioShare or NS2. Otherwise -1 dB seems to work fine for me.

    Ok I’ll play wit it until I find an acceptable outcome. @dendy did y’all sample at 44.1k 48k 88k or 96k? Thanks

  • edited March 10

    which samplerate to use is complex topic... it depends on content you sample.. and source.. For example if i resample Obsidian, which doesn't use ocersampling in it's filters, i use 96khz always when resampled sound uses high resonance, to lower aliasing.

    Also when i'm sampling stuff on higher octaves (let's say c5+) i use 96khz - to avoid aliasing.. those differences are probably very subtle. Bellow treshold most people can hear especially if that sound is playing in context of song together with XYZ another tracks... I'm open ed to posibility it's more just placebo than some real signifficant difference.. don't know..

    44khz sample rate files are lot smaller - which is important factor, devices storages aren't limitless. In most cases sound quality is sufficient.

    I would generally say, if you're sampling real analog synth, then use 96khz to capture most of it's color. When you're sampling VST/AU plugin which uses internally oversampling (massive, serum, and most of top class desktop plugins do use oversampling) then 44khz is probably fine..

    But take it just like my few cents to this topic, those are not rules written in stone, just my thoughts and observations ;)

  • @dendy very good points, thanks! How many semitones do you like to sample per octave? Just c3 once and let the automating stretch it or more often?

  • edited March 10

    I think one per octave is gold standard, works in most cases.

    Until you don't want capture some highly modulated complex evolving sounds and it sounds bad when C-note sample is transposed for example to G, one per octave is OK.

    But again, it's then always priblem size of all samole files if you use more notes per octave.

    One detail - i rather sample F note per octave than C note. Just because most of time melody is happening within octave, so if root note is F, it's morelikely that most of notes of melody are playing more close to root note - eg. less transposing :) Hope you understant what i mean.

  • @dendy said:
    I think one per octave is gold standard, works in most cases.

    Until you don't want capture some highly modulated complex evolving sounds and it sounds bad when C-note sample is transposed for example to G, one per octave is OK.

    But again, it's then always priblem size of all samole files if you use more notes per octave.

    One detail - i rather sample F note per octave than C note. Just because most of time melody is happening within octave, so if root note is F, it's morelikely that most of notes of melody are playing more close to root note - eg. less transposing :) Hope you understant what i mean.

    Makes a lot of sense actually, I never thought about it like that but thats true! Going forward I'll apply that. Are slate and obsidian set to different volume levels by default? Seems like the same samples between the two play louder in slate. If not, maybe its something in my settings.

    I've already built a few nice drums kits for slate but these Obsidian patches are a bit more complicated to be ready for public consumption. All the attacks, releases, etc have to make sense and feel right for each patch I think. Usually I just make beats with the defaults and adjust them throughout the creation process but I'm assuming most people who are looking for presets may not be aware or care to do a lot of button turning so it'll take awhile to have them ready probably. Ya'll went through a lot of work preparing those patches in obsidian. Respect.

  • edited March 10

    Are slate and obsidian set to different volume levels by default?

    yes, Slate plays a bit louder. I remember that Matt was trying a lot during developements to match those volumes as much as possible but there was lot of caveats, and at the end it was like “you add here, and it is too much on other place”

    I think it´s not needed to take too much care a out patch volume. Until it isn’t really BIG difference then’t it’s ok... You know, it’s also big difference in volume if filter is fully closed or fully opened .. and lot other factors..

    If you go through factory, even there some patches sounds more loud, other sounds quieter... Even throug we were trying hard to match them as much as possible...

    As i said, my method for obsidian patches is simoly check if mono patch on single note or poly patch on 3 notes is all the time significanlty bellow 0dB on mixer VU meter ..

    At the end there is “Stereo Gain” insert fx so you can always adjust volume of patch to your taste, or to somg co text ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.