Title: Re: [Finale] Most accurate performance package for auditioning?
Tammy,

IMO, in your situation, there is absolutely no reason to buy expensive sampling hardware!  If you want hardware, the E-mu Virtuoso 2000 is not bad for under $1000 (and is 32-part).

Software is really the way to go these days.  And the software is getting cheaper, smarter and better.  Most good soft-samplers will even play from the hard disk, so the whole multi doesn’t have to be loaded into RAM each time.  I would seriously look at MOTU’s latest offering, the Mach 5 Universal Sampler.  It will translate almost any sample library out there.  Then there is Bitheadz Unity, Native Instruments Kontakt, IK multimedia SampleTank, and, of course, Giga for the Windows platform, and so on.  Some of these offer a sample player version for less money, in case you don’t need to build and edit your own samples.

Tim

On 6/10/03 12:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Like some of you, I use Finale to help with arranging as well. I have gotten to the point where the cheesy sound from GM is no longer accceptable for auditioning my score.

I am trying to upgrade my system so I can get an accurate portrayal of how the score would actually sound. This would normally mean to start with Finale, make a MIDI file, and then feed it thru a performance package. There are two approaches:

(1) Hardware: Buy a very expensive sampler, and use a sequencer to feed a Midi file into it. Then listen to and do a mix of the result.

(2) Software: Upgrade my computer so it can handle sampling software (I have been told I need at least a 1 Ghz CPU, and more than 256 MB of RAM). Basically, this will convert my existing computer into a sampler. One such product is GigaStudio.

I was wondering if there is a third approach that would merely make a WAV file in the computer from a MIDI file, then I could simply play that back. If it's done offline, then computer speed and memory wouldn't be a limiting factor. The disadvantage is in the latent time it needs to do the off-line processing. Plus, I have to keep adjusting the mix every time it does the processing. But this may be something I can live with for the time being.

Any comments on your personal experiences would be sincerely appreciated.

Tammy G.


Reply via email to