Members Mike51 Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 http://www.nativeinstruments.de/index.php?kontakt2lib_us Main Category Contents Instruments Banks Total Size 01 - VSL Kontakt Orchestra A complete instrument set of an orchestra with 30 instruments, including special legato and repetition instruments, using the KONTAKT Script Processor 453 -- 7.5 GB 02 - KSP Instruments 2 special guitars, an automatic harp, arpeggiator synths and other special instruments, all using special KSP scripts 29 1 2.1 GB 03 - Grand Pianos 2 grand pianos: Steinway D and August F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kickinbak Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 The size is certainly impressive, but i OTOH hope that this time the sounds are more usable than the ones that came with the last version. Believe it or not, i actually prefered the sounds that came Kompkat rather than the ones with Kontakt. Anybody else hear me on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members radiospace Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 The first Kontakt library is the most pathetic, useless collection of samples I have ever heard. Unless there is a significant increase in the quality of the library, it would be no more or less useful if it was 500 Gigs or 15. The good news is it probably can't be any worse, and the VSL samples are bound to be good for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tjwett Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 agreed. the first Kontakt library sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by radiospace The good news is it probably can't be any worse... NI should put that quote on their website, as a user testimonial type of thing. Kontakt 2: with samples that can't be worse than the first time around! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lancaster Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by kickinbak Believe it or not, i actually prefered the sounds that came Kompakt rather than the ones with Kontakt.Anybody else hear me on this? +1 Kompakt was a total bargain for $200 with all those great sounds. The library was SO much better than Kontakt's. Hard to believe they're the same co. when you listen to some of the dog {censored} that came with Kontakt. They really need 2.0 to be awesome sounding to keep up with the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nilarayan Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 What was so bad with Kontakt's sounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Meatball Fulton Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 Does it include a coupon to help you buy the new hard drive you'll need to store 15GB of samples? I hate how software developers assume that users are continuously upgrading their hardware. Personally, I'm sick of it...and I design computer hardware for a living! Hardware upgrades are the big hole in the whole soft-studio argument. I own a Mac that is not yet 2 years old. Already there are current products I can't run on it because my CPU isn't fast enough I also can't forgive developers for forcing me to upgrade my OS to the latest rev (about $100) when Apple is on the verge of releasing a newer version in a few months (which will cost me another $100). By the way, since this started with a comment about the amount of samples in Kontakt 2, my machine has a 60GB hard drive (which was considered a good size at the time). So let's see, every time I buy a new software package I have to upgrade my whole system....I think not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike51 Posted March 23, 2005 Author Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 "I own a Mac that is not yet 2 years old. Already there are current products I can't run on it because my CPU isn't fast enough " That's because Mac is being blown away in the cpu speed wars. They are really doing their customers a disservice by not keeping up. 2 year old p4 2.4's run any audio apps fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mintbeetle Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP BRINGING UP THE MAC VS. PC WAR EVERY CHANCE YOU GET!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike51 Posted March 23, 2005 Author Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 hey mint, the guy wondered why his mac couldnt run the latest software. I told him why. Now, if I had started it out of the blue I could see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mintbeetle Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by Mike51 hey mint, the guy wondered why his mac couldnt run the latest software. I told him why.Now, if I had started it out of the blue I could see your point. true, but you completely disregarded the substance of Mr. Fulton's post. He was complaining about how software designers bloat their products and design with little regard to economical CPU use, compactness, or legacy support. A softsynth that uses twice as much CPU or hard disk space rarely sounds twice as good. I think you took this point and wrangled it into a PC vs. Mac debate. Meatball was talking about software, not hardware-- and as a hardware designer, I doubt he's ignorant about the pros and cons of the two platforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Meatball Fulton Posted March 23, 2005 Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by Mike51 That's because Mac is being blown away in the cpu speed wars. They are really doing their customers a disservice by not keeping up. No it's because the developers have their heads up their butts. Let's look at two recent software releases: I can run Reason 3.0 on a 10 year old Mac I own, but Arturia Storm 3.0 won't even run on my 2 year old Mac (I need both a faster CPU and a newer OS). Propellerheads simply has written more efficient code than Arturia has and can take advantage of a customer base still using older computers. I've written plenty of software over the last 25 years (I have an MS in computer engineering) and I used to write progams that had to fit in 4KB (that's Kbytes, not MB, not GB) of RAM. The computers that were used to put Apollo spacecraft on the moon probably had only about that much memory (you'd think synthesizing audio would require a bit less horsepower than controlling a spacecraft!!!). Every line you could shave off the code was critical. Most modern coders don't even bother with efficiency of the code any more. Off the shelf compilers from Microsoft like Visual C result in very inefficient code. Admittedly the OS upgrade requirements may to get beyond known bugs but considering Reason can still run on (obsolete) OS 10.2 and any G3 processor capable of running that OS (which includes my 10 year old Mac) while Storm requires a 1G G4 processor and 10.3 (meaning only Macs not more than a year old) a lot of users who might want to buy Storm are required to upgrade to use it. BTW: Reason 3.0 requires a 300MHz P3 running Win2000 or XP, how many 10 year old PCs qualify there? Of course this whole "software bloat" is what drives the computer industry. You want the latest software to get more features, eliminate old bugs, continue to get support, etc. so you have to upgrade your hardware and OS. Then the next software upgrade arrives and you have to do it again, etc. It's also the big hole in the softsynth argument: as cheap as the software is, you need to have the right hardware to run it and the hardware costs a lot more than the software does. Last but not least if you check most benchmarks, when running at the same clock speed Power PCs generally outperform Pentiums so Macs don't need to have clock speeds as high as Windows boxes (this may change at some point in the future of course). Besides there is a lot more driving actual processing speed than how fast the CPU clocks. Read some books on computer architecture if you want to know more about this and the compiler efficiency I wrote about above. OK, I'm off my soapbox Sorry if I dragged this thread OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike51 Posted March 23, 2005 Author Members Share Posted March 23, 2005 ++No it's because the developers have their heads up their butts. Let's look at two recent software releases: I can run Reason 3.0 on a 10 year old Mac I own, but Arturia Storm 3.0 won't even run on my 2 year old Mac (I need both a faster CPU and a newer OS). Propellerheads simply has written more efficient code than Arturia has and can take advantage of a customer base still using older computers.++ Yes they have, no question about it. Reason is more stable and more CPU effecient. But their synth's are also blown away by Arturia's. ++Admittedly the OS upgrade requirements may to get beyond known bugs but considering Reason can still run on (obsolete) OS 10.2 and any G3 processor capable of running that OS (which includes my 10 year old Mac) while Storm requires a 1G G4 processor and 10.3 (meaning only Macs not more than a year old) a lot of users who might want to buy Storm are required to upgrade to use it. ++ But dont you think Storm has a bit more bite to the synths than Reason? Sure, you may be right about the code but I think Storm's synth are a notch better than Reasons. ++ BTW: Reason 3.0 requires a 300MHz P3 running Win2000 or XP, how many 10 year old PCs qualify there?++ Not many. But still, that's a damn good system requirement! ++Last but not least if you check most benchmarks, when running at the same clock speed Power PCs generally outperform Pentiums so Macs don't need to have clock speeds as high as Windows boxes (this may change at some point in the future of course). Besides there is a lot more driving actual processing speed than how fast the CPU clocks. Read some books on computer architecture if you want to know more about this and the compiler efficiency I wrote about above.++ Yeah I am well aware of these facts. You are right, software bloat and ineffeciancy run rampant. But the guy who got himself a p4 2.4 a couple years ago is still able to run all audio apps without issue. That is saying alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mr.rob Posted March 24, 2005 Members Share Posted March 24, 2005 Didn't NI announce they were using sounds from their development partners this time?I know there are the vienna symphonic sounds. I beleive some of the others are eastwest/zero-g. Personally I don't mind a 15 gig library. But then, I have a PC. Upgrades can be accomplished quite cheaply. I think this is the big secret with using windows for music: keep the internet on a seperate partition. That way you won't get any viruses where your work is being done. Installing new hardware at the level of the CPU and mobo takes a little patience, but if you stay a step behind the cutting edge then you can spend a few hundred, or less, and have a new motherboard and CPU as frequently as your heart desires. My only gripe with NI is their whole NI komplete Care thing where you're supposed to spend a couple of hundred dollars each year for their updates. A tad rich for my blood. In the long run it becomes a subscription and the software updates end up costing more than the PC hardware I use at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.