Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Favorite Physical Modeling VSTi in 2021... and Beyond!

AnhrithmonGelasma said:
Also, in terms of sound design or generating interesting sounds, Atoms suffers from the controls being much too simple and from not having enough modulation options.

The timbres are generally okay, but not great---they could probably be vastly improved with EQ. But the only EQ in the plugin is the single low pass filter (frequently already being used for filter sweeps), which is again going to greatly limit what preset designers can do for the upcoming expansion packs (unless the synth is expanded). In Profiles, I think the default Standard profile is my least favorite in terms of timbre---I guess I'd rank them 1. alternative, 2. inharmonic, 3. lofi.

It seems like the pitchbend is just tacked on to the output rather than being incorporated into the physical model. So I don't think there's much advantage to using this over non-physically modeled bowed-string-like sounds or samples for playable vibrato.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points. It's fine, not great, and way too limited tweaking-wise for my uses. I'm also not a fan of the GUI even though it's fairly simple...feels a bit clunky to use to me, and many things are really hard to see due to tiny font sizes and poor contrast in color choices (both light and dark options suffer from this in the LFO menus, for example).
 
There is a new video from pluginboutique with shows all you need to know about possible randomisation results:



In general this is my dream physical modelling synth, simple, randomizer.....

But the video really helps to definitely pass on this, the resulting sounds are....

So I wont really call it a marketing video but it helps :sneaky:
 
Yeah it's not quite come through this time for me with Atoms. Their last 2 plugins for me, one an instrument the other a multi-effect, have both left me a little cold. This feels like one of those that maybe works on paper better than it does in practice. The simplicity of the way it makes physcial modelling accessible is totally laudible, and I feel that the engine itself isn't especially amazing, but not bad either. I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's a no-go for now at least.
 
Last edited:
After playing around with Atoms some more, I was able to get some okay expressively playable string vibrato sounds (via MPE pitchbend) in the bass register on one of the more "realistic" (but not very) presets. The "bow scraping / resin-ish" noise is less irritating in the bass register, but it still sounds bad. There might be a way to get reduce it? But they don't give us much access to the underlying physical model, so maybe not.

But the big deal-breaker for me is that pitchbend range is stuck at 2. I'm not going to seriously consider buying it until they fix that. It's ridiculous that they market this as "MPE"... it's absurdly limited.
 
AnhrithmonGelasma said:
From Physical Audio: "We’re just working on an update to Derailer that allows flexible mapping of the MPE controls, as per Modus."

As an expressively playable MPE instrument it's already much better than Atoms (so far). (Both use a mass-spring network.)

Click to expand...

I don't mean this as a random internet potshot but as an observation - the vibrato effect is minimal for all the moving around you are doing - and to be fair my experience with playing a Roll has been unpleasant, but I feel like in general the finger-wiggling controllers seem more often to offer an opportunity for users to do something physical than to offer musical results.
 
justthere said:
I don't mean this as a random internet potshot but as an observation - the vibrato effect is minimal for all the moving around you are doing - and to be fair my experience with playing a Roll has been unpleasant, but I feel like in general the finger-wiggling controllers seem more often to offer an opportunity for users to do something physical than to offer musical results.
Click to expand...








 
To each their own, I suppose. It's not that those players have no ability - lots of terrific talent on display. But the vibrato is often not like the instrument, and the salient feature of every one of those performances is not in fact vibrato, but rather legato note transitions and phrasing; in the more exotic ones, like Kostas' first one, the playing is great though perhaps not always to my personal taste, which isn't relevant to this, and the weakest thing in it IMO is the vibrato: it stands out because the rest of it is amazing. I don't blame the players so much as the technology and the physical metaphor, but often the shape of the vibrato is just not accurate for the instrument - the curve, the pitch center and so on. But I was speaking in particular of the post I responded to. And other examples don't really prove much about that one.
 
justthere said:
To each their own, I suppose. It's not that those players have no ability - lots of terrific talent on display. But the vibrato is often not like the instrument, and the salient feature of every one of those performances is not in fact vibrato, but rather legato note transitions and phrasing; in the more exotic ones, like Kostas' first one, the playing is great though perhaps not always to my personal taste, which isn't relevant to this, and the weakest thing in it IMO is the vibrato: it stands out because the rest of it is amazing. I don't blame the players so much as the technology and the physical metaphor, but often the shape of the vibrato is just not accurate for the instrument - the curve, the pitch center and so on. But I was speaking in particular of the post I responded to. And other examples don't really prove much about that one.
Click to expand...
What matters is that it does sound musical---and expressive.

Here's a nice classical violin example, although you'll notice that she "should" only be playing down vibrato but is not, which might ruin it for you (if you're really not capable of appreciating anything that doesn't sound exactly like the traditional violin playing that you'd been habituated to):

 
I think you are taking someone's opinion very personally.

It's also been my experience that with many aficionados of these kinds of instruments, realism is paramount up to the point where it suddenly becomes about "expressiveness", which is of course an argument that can't be won - if you find something expressive to you, you will always be right in saying that it's expressive to you. But it's not just realism I'm looking at - it's tepid vs. solid intent. And if I'm going by sound alone, I don't find the depicted example compelling, though I know it was fun to do for the player.

I don't want people to stop working at this for any reason - I love modeled instruments and I'm fascinated by alternative input devices. And I've been impressed for example by some of the folks in India playing GeoShred versions of Indian instruments, the performances of which are full of beauty and mastery, and one would think Geoshred would be far more of a blunt instrument than the Roli, so that's a testament to the player's ability. But in many cases of what ends up on YouTube showing off Roli controllers - or even GeoShred or Linnstrument, for that matter - I'm hearing folks in the rosy stage of infatuation with how it's much more freeing than a conventional keyboard, but apparently it has also freed people into cramming every moment with lots of expressiveness, or has them enjoying the sensation of emoting with a finger so much that the sound produced is somewhat secondary. It's easy to be swayed by this - I recall when my partners and I got a massive new screen for the studio and after watching cues we'd done, someone saying, "is it just me or do our cues sound better?" It's related to how some people make elaborate facial expressions or lean their bodies into holding a single note on a plastic keyboard - there's nothing wrong with it per se and people should be free to do that or anything, but the effect achieved musically isn't the same as the one achieved in the player's mind. I like the idea of MPE and am all for it - but what is to be gained from it by a player who hasn't the ability to own that way of playing? Keyboard players are often accustomed to instruments doing things for them, and the new generation of controllers and instruments demand more than many are prepared to give.

But that's just a stranger on the internet talking. If you are satisfied with this as an example of how it should be done, there's no problem, right?
 
holonology said:
Yeah it's not quite come through this time for me with Atoms. Their last 2 plugins for me, one an instrument the other a multi-effect, have both left me a little cold. This feels like one of those that maybe works on paper better than it does in practice. The simplicity of the way it makes physcial modelling accessible is totally laudible, and I feel that the engine itself isn't especially amazing, but not bad either. I can't put my finger on it, but I think it's a no-go for now at least.
Click to expand...
Agreed, yeah. I just didn't enjoy using it, the combo of the sound itself and the GUI. Hats off for them for giving it a go, though! Perhaps it will see some major improvements and I'll check it out again in the future.
 
justthere said:
I think you are taking someone's opinion very personally.

It's also been my experience that with many aficionados of these kinds of instruments, realism is paramount up to the point where it suddenly becomes about "expressiveness", which is of course an argument that can't be won - if you find something expressive to you, you will always be right in saying that it's expressive to you. But it's not just realism I'm looking at - it's tepid vs. solid intent. And if I'm going by sound alone, I don't find the depicted example compelling, though I know it was fun to do for the player.

I don't want people to stop working at this for any reason - I love modeled instruments and I'm fascinated by alternative input devices. And I've been impressed for example by some of the folks in India playing GeoShred versions of Indian instruments, the performances of which are full of beauty and mastery, and one would think Geoshred would be far more of a blunt instrument than the Roli, so that's a testament to the player's ability. But in many cases of what ends up on YouTube showing off Roli controllers - or even GeoShred or Linnstrument, for that matter - I'm hearing folks in the rosy stage of infatuation with how it's much more freeing than a conventional keyboard, but apparently it has also freed people into cramming every moment with lots of expressiveness, or has them enjoying the sensation of emoting with a finger so much that the sound produced is somewhat secondary. It's easy to be swayed by this - I recall when my partners and I got a massive new screen for the studio and after watching cues we'd done, someone saying, "is it just me or do our cues sound better?" It's related to how some people make elaborate facial expressions or lean their bodies into holding a single note on a plastic keyboard - there's nothing wrong with it per se and people should be free to do that or anything, but the effect achieved musically isn't the same as the one achieved in the player's mind. I like the idea of MPE and am all for it - but what is to be gained from it by a player who hasn't the ability to own that way of playing? Keyboard players are often accustomed to instruments doing things for them, and the new generation of controllers and instruments demand more than many are prepared to give.

But that's just a stranger on the internet talking. If you are satisfied with this as an example of how it should be done, there's no problem, right?
Click to expand...
I think you're conflating some of the marketing hype about the realism of physical modeling VI like SWAM and Pianoteq (including overblown Youtube clickbait) with the purpose of MPE controllers. The primary point of instruments like the Seaboard, Continuum, and Osmose has always been expressivity, not "realism".

As I've posted many times in this and other threads, I personally prefer physical modeling VI that don't try to be "realistic". I prefer the timbres of Friktion and Modelonia over SWAM and Pianoteq. As I wrote recently in one of the Pianoteq threads, even the latest Pianoteq update still lacks the timbral complexity of sampled instruments (the physical models are oversimplified, and sound like it when you listen closely), which is why I find the timbres of SWAM and Pianoteq less appealing. Physical modeling technology now and for the foreseeable future probably isn't going to have enough computational power on a home computer to simulate all the complexities of an acoustic instrument that humans can hear (though the example of Synthesizer V makes me think that neural networks---or perhaps "physics assisted neural networks"---may succeed in the near future where pure physical modeling has not). Of course, drenching them in reverb (or other effects) helps a lot, and can certainly produce results that most people would not be able to distinguish from the instruments being modeled. That's what Parisi does with SWAM strings (for at least one piece featured in a major Hollywood movie soundtrack, among other things...).

Perhaps the combination of a simplified model of the basic physics combined with heavy reverb explains Physical Audio's preference for "ghostly" timbres---which current physical modeling technology is well-suited towards. OTOH Physical Audio also demonstrates how going beyond emulations of preexisting instruments can add timbral richness through different kinds of complexity---mass-spring networks, networks of resonating plates and strings, etc.

Friktion, Modelonia, and Plasmonic are good examples of how physical modeling timbres can be made to sound rich and complex, though at the expense of not sounding as much like a realistic emulation of an acoustic instrument.

Still, I'd love a PM virtual instrument based around (or inspired by) the expressivity of bowing action with a timbre like Friktion but the expressively playable vibrato of SWAM strings (as well as a wider range of timbres, and more experimental options).

As for the learning curve for instruments like the Seaboard or Osmose... it takes a lot less time than learning to play the violin and cello and flute and... all the other possible instruments. And for about the last 7 years I've generally been using the Seaboard as my only instrument aside from my voice.
 
AnhrithmonGelasma said:
I think you're conflating some of the marketing hype about the realism of physical modeling VI like SWAM and Pianoteq (including overblown Youtube clickbait) with the purpose of MPE controllers. The primary point of instruments like the Seaboard, Continuum, and Osmose has always been expressivity, not "realism".

As I've posted many times in this and other threads, I personally prefer physical modeling VI that don't try to be "realistic". I prefer the timbres of Friktion and Modelonia over SWAM and Pianoteq. As I wrote recently in one of the Pianoteq threads, even the latest Pianoteq update still lacks the timbral complexity of sampled instruments (the physical models are oversimplified, and sound like it when you listen closely), which is why I find the timbres of SWAM and Pianoteq less appealing. Physical modeling technology now and for the foreseeable future probably isn't going to have enough computational power on a home computer to simulate all the complexities of an acoustic instrument that humans can hear (though the example of Synthesizer V makes me think that neural networks---or perhaps "physics assisted neural networks"---may succeed in the near future where pure physical modeling has not). Of course, drenching them in reverb (or other effects) helps a lot, and can certainly produce results that most people would not be able to distinguish from the instruments being modeled. That's what Parisi does with SWAM strings (for at least one piece featured in a major Hollywood movie soundtrack, among other things...).

Perhaps the combination of a simplified model of the basic physics combined with heavy reverb explains Physical Audio's preference for "ghostly" timbres---which current physical modeling technology is well-suited towards. OTOH Physical Audio also demonstrates how going beyond emulations of preexisting instruments can add timbral richness through different kinds of complexity---mass-spring networks, networks of resonating plates and strings, etc.

Friktion, Modelonia, and Plasmonic are good examples of how physical modeling timbres can be made to sound rich and complex, though at the expense of not sounding as much like a realistic emulation of an acoustic instrument.

Still, I'd love a PM virtual instrument based around (or inspired by) the expressivity of bowing action with a timbre like Friktion but the expressively playable vibrato of SWAM strings (as well as a wider range of timbres, and more experimental options).

As for the learning curve for instruments like the Seaboard or Osmose... it takes a lot less time than learning to play the violin and cello and flute and... all the other possible instruments. And for about the last 7 years I've generally been using the Seaboard as my only instrument aside from my voice.
Click to expand...
Okay, so that's your only controller. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks about what you use - it's the result that's important. I know nothing about your results.

You may have an axe to grind with how PM instruments are marketed and hyped - and I agree: no matter how many times someone from Audiomodeling says something sounds incredible, I still hate every demo of theirs with a passion, and I have the winds and the solo strings. If I'd relied upon the demos I wouldn't have bought anything from them ever. And it seems like lots and lots (and lots) of fingers get used for a lot of the demos out there in general, but (again, my opinion) a lot of it lacks any kind of restraint or taste. The ones where people have transcended the novelty aspect of wiggling and so on are few and far between - and it seems like I'm supposed to like some of the flashier examples shown here, but I have to say if the player were on the actual emulated instrument this wouldn't fly, so it's not my preference. Tradeshow demos aren't a reasonable reference for a player especially since they have their own requirements and approach - but... anyway, best to move on from this.

I'm not conflating that with the devices themselves. I have a bias about using breath controllers - as a singer and former brass player, I love that as a metaphor for many instruments, bowed or blown, as there can be a dynamic intent that carries through many notes in a way that other controllers don't really do on their own; and I didn't enjoy the feel of the surface on Roli keyboards, but to each their own. But I will say that the increased opportunity to be expressive does not give a uniform result - in fact, for players who are accustomed to having an LFO take care of shape and even speed and just control the amount, there seems to be a random, twitchy quality to their vibrato efforts. Whether it's due entirely to their unfamiliarity with this kind of thing or the responsiveness of the actual controller or whatever else, it's still there. And I get that it's easier in some ways to play a Roli than a violin, but among many things one ideally learns while acquiring technique for an instrument are taste and musicality. Whether one's choice is to duplicate violin or to venture into the purely abstract, I feel like it's still possible to hear things that feel musical and directed or not, and I also theorize that the immediacy that things like the Roli represent to a number of users, even if subconsciously, a way to avoid some process that one might find unpleasant or restrictive or tedious.

And to be clear - if someone plays vibrato on a violin unconventionally, that's fine with me, if it speaks with beauty and intent. Departing from convention can be powerful, especially if one understands the convention. But that's not always the case, and the freedom to express doesn't translate directly into having something coherent to express. As I said above, it's the result that's important.
 
Speaking of vibratos, I never liked the vibratos created in Seaboard, I think that technically there is a "jump" that is made in the pitch.
I hear as if there is missing data when it is played quickly, like in the case of a vibrato.
I don't hear this on Osmosis (see example below).



So, it is possible that the complaints made to the vibratos are not due to the player but rather to the hardware.
But it is also possible that it comes from Swam, because in the demo above the Roli plays Swam and the Osmose its internal sound.
 
Last edited:
lychee said:
Speaking of vibratos, I never liked the vibratos created in Seaboard, I think that technically there is a "jump" that is made in the pitch.
I hear as if there is missing data when it is played quickly, like in the case of a vibrato.
I don't hear this on Osmosis (see example below).



So, it is possible that the complaints made to the vibratos are not due to the player but rather to the hardware.
But it is also possible that it comes from Swam, because in the demo above the Roli plays Swam and the Osmose its internal sound.
Click to expand...

That is really glaring in this video!
 
lychee said:
Speaking of vibratos, I never liked the vibratos created in Seaboard, I think that technically there is a "jump" that is made in the pitch.
I hear as if there is missing data when it is played quickly, like in the case of a vibrato.
I don't hear this on Osmosis (see example below).



So, it is possible that the complaints made to the vibratos are not due to the player but rather to the hardware.
But it is also possible that it comes from Swam, because in the demo above the Roli plays Swam and the Osmose its internal sound.
Click to expand...

The ROLI Seaboard has a setting that locks the pitch at first strike to the nearest note. You then have to drag a bit to do a pitch bend. You can turn that off. Linnstrument has a similar setting, though I don't think it defaults to that – I can't remember accurately as I've built a number of presets over time and forgotten what it actually defaults to.

There is a second issue that might be at work in that it's pretty hard to maintain constant pressure on a Seaboard and also on a Linnstrument while doing a vibrato wiggle so you might get a mix of tremolo and vibrato where you only want vibrato. The dynamics on an Osmose are a bit different as you either have to work a bit on the finger muscles or use a bit of leverage from the wrist to get the necessary action on the key whereas, somewhat ironically, on the other two the finger action is actually more like that on a fretboard (the finger rotates more).

Mapping expression/dynamics to slide rather than aftertouch will help there though this might not work well if you need to glissandi a lot in the passage. Another option is to just map dynamics to a foot pedal or breath/bite. As the issue of unrealistic vibrato is going to be confined to mostly monophonic instruments, this isn't a bad compromise and is more consistent with a bowed instrument where dynamics are in the bow and vibrato is on the fretboard.

In general, I think people get way too stuck into the online demos, thinking that's the only way to play these things. Osmose, for example, does not play nice with SWAM in the default MPE settings (note that the video doesn't show this but uses the internal sounds instead). You need to mess with the Osmose MIDI output and SWAM MIDI input settings a bit to get good results, though in reality, I would normally default to the Linnstrument for strings as it offers, for me at least, the best combination of playing features in that case. These things and the different setups they enable are practically instruments in their own right and should be approached from that perspective IMO.
 
Last edited:
lychee said:
Speaking of vibratos, I never liked the vibratos created in Seaboard, I think that technically there is a "jump" that is made in the pitch.
I hear as if there is missing data when it is played quickly, like in the case of a vibrato.
I don't hear this on Osmosis (see example below).



So, it is possible that the complaints made to the vibratos are not due to the player but rather to the hardware.
But it is also possible that it comes from Swam, because in the demo above the Roli plays Swam and the Osmose its internal sound.
Click to expand...

If you listen closely you can hear that the apparent "jumps" in the pitch of the vibrato don't happen all of the time. For example:





Those sound smooth to me.

[Edit: they actually have Glide set to a low level, which increases pitchbend quantization and so causes it to jump. You can see the Glide level in the slider on the far left with the icon above it.]
 
Last edited:
gamma-ut said:
Mapping expression/dynamics to slide rather than aftertouch will help there though this might not work well if you need to glissandi a lot in the passage. Another option is to just map dynamics to a foot pedal or breath/bite. As the issue of unrealistic vibrato is going to be confined to mostly monophonic instruments, this isn't a bad compromise and is more consistent with a bowed instrument where dynamics are in the bow and vibrato is on the fretboard.
Click to expand...
If you're playing it monophonically you could also just map dynamics or pitchbend to one of the Rise 2's three sliders or to a dimension of its XY pad.

Electric Himalya pointed out something I missed on first viewing: the Glide (pitchbend) control for the Seaboard Rise---it's the slider on the far left---is set to a low value. (You can tell that the sliders are set to control Glide, Slide, and Pressure because they have icons above them. When set to act as midi cc sliders instead they don't have icons above them.) "The vibrato ... may not be as fluid as it could be perhaps due to the GLIDE fader being set to less than half way. See the three faders on the left. When set below full scale, this fader introduces variable pitch quantisation, so vibrato gestures will be quantised, and not as open as they could be."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom