hmmm no sooner does jax change his tone to a more inquisitive, studious one than someone else goes nuts to take his place.
Actually convincing people who wish to use a sampler and who have samplers fill their needs absolutely should be convinced to try other things than AB, so that isnt something im against at all (havent i recommended other things in every post?).
anyways i wanna reward jax for his new improved style with answers as best as i can.
lets look at another area where physics modeling is used, weather forecasting.
weather stations use computers to model the weather, and they make the model try to behave like the real thing. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesnt.
Weather forecasting models have improved greatly in the last 10 years but they still have a long way to go as they become, with ever stronger computing power, able to model more and more aspects of reality all at once.Whats important to realize is that physical modeling is really hard because its physics.
it has been easier for plugin makers to model comparatively simpler things like analog circuits and be better recieved, such as the arp2600, moogs etc.
i have 3 uad-1 cards and im quite pleased with their models as well.Arturia have in fact made history by making the first ATTEMPT at a brass acoustic physical modeler plugin.
even if you feel it sucks, you cannot deny this is a brave step forward, or even backward with the ultimate intention of moving far forward.
Samplers cheat to get timbre, they simply record the instrument.
EVERYONE HERE GETS THAT SAMPLERS WIN IN THE TIMBRE RACE, CASE CLOSED (for now)
obviously thats a very easy and convenient way to get timbre happening, its been an excellent technological synthesis shortcut to simply be able to copy the basic tones from instruments in samplers, but no sampler can capture the instruments behavior
the wobbling you mentioned for instance is what a real trumpet does, its called a shake, its a vibrato thats extended to spread over the harmonic breaks, its really hard to do realistic shakes on a sampler that will fit the stylistic context. listen to some Louis Armstrong for a lot of this technique.
shakes, lip slurs, glissandos, examples of behaviors.
so i think its accurate to say that samplers are undeniably more powerful in getting the timbre, but its a convenient shortcut they use, but modelers are ALREADY more powerful at doing behaviors.
itd be nice to merge the technologies but noone has found a way. thats why a lot of people are using both.
the demos werent played by a keyboard exactly, they were played with one of these:http://www.patchmanmusic.com/wx5info.html
or one of thesehttp://www.patchmanmusic.com/ewi4000s.html
or one of thesehttp://www.patchmanmusic.com/mdt.htmlthey were recorded in realtime with no midi editing, thats live.
but the thing about midi is that the it doesnt matter what you use, midi is midi. You can edit in controller data and it should work though it might be tough to simulate the natural intricacies that you get using those wind controllers.
the vl70m is going over 6 years old now, probably more. all that time ive been waiting for the next step.
ive posted, along with others, many times BEGGING for someone anyone to do a PM plugin like the vl70-m all those 6 years. you can search vl70m on the cubase and nuendo and kvr forums for those.
but computers havent been powerful enough until recently. what we are witnessing in arturia brass is the dawn of PM on computer, sure its crude and ugly at the moment. yes i said crude and ugly, but the point is that this is the first step in a technology that, as computers get more powerful, will take over as THE way to do acoustic instrument synthesis.
and no matter how ugly and crude that first step is, it puts arturia in the lead in this field.