Topic by Lee Zuhars

  • Avatar
  • Lee Zuhars
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: Yesterday
  • Posts: 3

Topic: Sampleled libraries vs Physically Modeled libraries

New here, love PT(9)

Bought Steinberg The Grand3 to find it cannot handle Half Damper sustain (full CC 0-127) pedal, only on off.

Stumbled across PT trial to find it does handle HD sustain. Immediately purchased PRO for this and all it's other goodness.

Emailed Spectrasonics about Keyscape. Keyscape, Halion, and SINE (Novation) does not handle HD sustain.

Googled "does sampled music libraries not support half damper sustain while physically modeled libraries do"? Answer according to AI (ugh!) "It is not strictly true that all sampled libraries lack half-damper sustain, while all physically modeled libraries have it, but the statement reflects a fundamental difference in how they handle articulation. Physically modeled libraries are naturally designed to support half-pedaling continuously, while sampled libraries often require complex scripting to simulate this effect, with varying degrees of success."

I do not yet fully understand all the diffs / foibles about this topic subject. Then I hear Gamechanger PLUS sustain pedal on Youtube. Sounds nice at least for guitar. I believe it works with some looping technique. I could not find a VST using the same technique / algorhythem. Reverb is not sustain.

Questions: Is there a fundamental differance about this topic sublect that may prevent or make algorithms difficult for sampled libraries to allow HD sustain? Would PLUS type algorithm based VST be a viable work around or sound too fake for polyphonic systems?

As mentioned love PT and encourage Modartt to contnue with other acoustic instruments.

Reply by Pianistically

  • Avatar
  • Pianistically
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 12-07-2023
  • Posts: 327

Re: Sampleled libraries vs Physically Modeled libraries

Lee Zuhars wrote:

New here, love PT(9)

Bought Steinberg The Grand3 to find it cannot handle Half Damper sustain (full CC 0-127) pedal, only on off.

Stumbled across PT trial to find it does handle HD sustain. Immediately purchased PRO for this and all it's other goodness.

Emailed Spectrasonics about Keyscape. Keyscape, Halion, and SINE (Novation) does not handle HD sustain.

Googled "does sampled music libraries not support half damper sustain while physically modeled libraries do"? Answer according to AI (ugh!) "It is not strictly true that all sampled libraries lack half-damper sustain, while all physically modeled libraries have it, but the statement reflects a fundamental difference in how they handle articulation. Physically modeled libraries are naturally designed to support half-pedaling continuously, while sampled libraries often require complex scripting to simulate this effect, with varying degrees of success."

I do not yet fully understand all the diffs / foibles about this topic subject. Then I hear Gamechanger PLUS sustain pedal on Youtube. Sounds nice at least for guitar. I believe it works with some looping technique. I could not find a VST using the same technique / algorhythem. Reverb is not sustain.

Questions: Is there a fundamental differance about this topic sublect that may prevent or make algorithms difficult for sampled libraries to allow HD sustain? Would PLUS type algorithm based VST be a viable work around or sound too fake for polyphonic systems?

As mentioned love PT and encourage Modartt to contnue with other acoustic instruments.

Good sampled libraries do support half pedalling,VSL Synchron, VILabs Modern D , Garritan CFX all these libraries support half pedalling techniques and do so with pedal down samples registered with many positions which they blend to get continuous values  Netscape doesn't because this is library designed with live gig in mind and not designed for classical music . In live situations with instruments like electric guitars, drums and bass, half pedalling is not very important.
Worth noting half pedalling is only the top of the iceberg as it includes many techniques such as pedal vibrato , flutter pedalling, re-pedalling ... that all require continuous values.

After trying many libraries both Pianoteq and VILabs Modern D excel  in that particular area of piano technique.

Reply by Lee Zuhars

  • Avatar
  • Lee Zuhars
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: Yesterday
  • Posts: 3

Re: Sampleled libraries vs Physically Modeled libraries

Pianistically wrote:
Lee Zuhars wrote:

New here, love PT(9)

Bought Steinberg The Grand3 to find it cannot handle Half Damper sustain (full CC 0-127) pedal, only on off.

Stumbled across PT trial to find it does handle HD sustain. Immediately purchased PRO for this and all it's other goodness.

Emailed Spectrasonics about Keyscape. Keyscape, Halion, and SINE (Novation) does not handle HD sustain.

Googled "does sampled music libraries not support half damper sustain while physically modeled libraries do"? Answer according to AI (ugh!) "It is not strictly true that all sampled libraries lack half-damper sustain, while all physically modeled libraries have it, but the statement reflects a fundamental difference in how they handle articulation. Physically modeled libraries are naturally designed to support half-pedaling continuously, while sampled libraries often require complex scripting to simulate this effect, with varying degrees of success."

I do not yet fully understand all the diffs / foibles about this topic subject. Then I hear Gamechanger PLUS sustain pedal on Youtube. Sounds nice at least for guitar. I believe it works with some looping technique. I could not find a VST using the same technique / algorhythem. Reverb is not sustain.

Questions: Is there a fundamental differance about this topic sublect that may prevent or make algorithms difficult for sampled libraries to allow HD sustain? Would PLUS type algorithm based VST be a viable work around or sound too fake for polyphonic systems?

As mentioned love PT and encourage Modartt to contnue with other acoustic instruments.

/

Good sampled libraries do support half pedalling,VSL Synchron, VILabs Modern D , Garritan CFX all these libraries support half pedalling techniques and do so with pedal down samples registered with many positions which they blend to get continuous values Netscape doesn't because this is library designed with live gig in mind and not designed for classical music. In live situations with instruments like electric guitars, drums and bass, half pedalling is not very important.
Worth noting half pedalling is only the top of the iceberg as it includes many techniques such as pedal vibrato , flutter pedalling, re-pedalling ... that all require continuous values.

After trying many libraries both Pianoteq and VILabs Modern D excel  in that particular area of piano technique.

Thank you Pianistically for this information that HD inclusion is about the completeness / size of the library not the type / system of the library. And the analogy of use case makes sense. Wow, Veinna Symphonic libraries are extensive.

Reply by daniel_r328

  • Avatar
  • daniel_r328
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-07-2025
  • Posts: 144

Re: Sampleled libraries vs Physically Modeled libraries

For half-pedaling in particular, blending samples together can give perfectly acceptable results, as Pianistically said.

I'd just add that the differences between sampled and modelled really come to the fore in fast repeats (trills, ostinatos, etc), where sampled instruments inevitably sound quite robotic or "too stable".

For more sustained music, there's a bit of a battle of tastes of whether you prefer the mastered, "curated" sound of samples or the raw (and perhaps a bit too-quantised) sound of models. Opinions are strong and (because internet) often stated as absolutes

Btw you mentioned guitar pedals vs sustain in pianos, so I just wanted to point out that they are different: those guitar pedals are a form of reverb to the dry sound, whereas sustains on a piano is a continuation of the dry sound plus sympathetic resonance from the other strings, leading to a more sophisticated sound evolution. There's a new crop of hybrid libraries that use samples for the dry sound plus a modal resonator model for the sympathetic resonances, but they can feel a bit detached imo. So it's not impossible at all - just pretty hard. One could write a whole PhD thesis about modelling piano resonances and launch a whole vi company with the findings

Reply by Pianistically

  • Avatar
  • Pianistically
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 12-07-2023
  • Posts: 327

Re: Sampleled libraries vs Physically Modeled libraries

daniel_r328 wrote:

For half-pedaling in particular, blending samples together can give perfectly acceptable results, as Pianistically said.

I'd just add that the differences between sampled and modelled really come to the fore in fast repeats (trills, ostinatos, etc), where sampled instruments inevitably sound quite robotic or "too stable".

For more sustained music, there's a bit of a battle of tastes of whether you prefer the mastered, "curated" sound of samples or the raw (and perhaps a bit too-quantised) sound of models. Opinions are strong and (because internet) often stated as absolutes

Btw you mentioned guitar pedals vs sustain in pianos, so I just wanted to point out that they are different: those guitar pedals are a form of reverb to the dry sound, whereas sustains on a piano is a continuation of the dry sound plus sympathetic resonance from the other strings, leading to a more sophisticated sound evolution. There's a new crop of hybrid libraries that use samples for the dry sound plus a modal resonator model for the sympathetic resonances, but they can feel a bit detached imo. So it's not impossible at all - just pretty hard. One could write a whole PhD thesis about modelling piano resonances and launch a whole vi company with the findings

regarding repeated notes and the machine gun effect at fast speed above 12 notes/sec you are right , pianoteq excels . Most sampled libraries get the repeated sound in cache ( except ViLabs which has an option to simulate the lack of amplitude of the hammer in repeated notes and don’t get the samples from the cache) .
What is paradoxal here is that composer’s intention when they write sequences of repeated notes expect the volume to be the same apart specific accents on given notes and don’t take into consideration that that the first note of the sequence is going to be louder . So in a nutshell , we are replicating an imperfection of the action

Reply by Lee Zuhars

  • Avatar
  • Lee Zuhars
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: Yesterday
  • Posts: 3

Re: Sampleled libraries vs Physically Modeled libraries

Pianistically wrote:
daniel_r328 wrote:

For half-pedaling in particular, blending samples together can give perfectly acceptable results, as Pianistically said.

I'd just add that the differences between sampled and modelled really come to the fore in fast repeats (trills, ostinatos, etc), where sampled instruments inevitably sound quite robotic or "too stable".

For more sustained music, there's a bit of a battle of tastes of whether you prefer the mastered, "curated" sound of samples or the raw (and perhaps a bit too-quantised) sound of models. Opinions are strong and (because internet) often stated as absolutes

Btw you mentioned guitar pedals vs sustain in pianos, so I just wanted to point out that they are different: those guitar pedals are a form of reverb to the dry sound, whereas sustains on a piano is a continuation of the dry sound plus sympathetic resonance from the other strings, leading to a more sophisticated sound evolution. There's a new crop of hybrid libraries that use samples for the dry sound plus a modal resonator model for the sympathetic resonances, but they can feel a bit detached imo. So it's not impossible at all - just pretty hard. One could write a whole PhD thesis about modelling piano resonances and launch a whole vi company with the findings

regarding repeated notes and the machine gun effect at fast speed above 12 notes/sec you are right , pianoteq excels . Most sampled libraries get the repeated sound in cache ( except ViLabs which has an option to simulate the lack of amplitude of the hammer in repeated notes and don’t get the samples from the cache) .
What is paradoxal here is that composer’s intention when they write sequences of repeated notes expect the volume to be the same apart specific accents on given notes and don’t take into consideration that that the first note of the sequence is going to be louder . So in a nutshell , we are replicating an imperfection of the action

I appreciate all the feed back here. As a retired EE and amateur musician, I am just getting into modern DAW systems, Please for give me if I say something stupid. I get the importance of sonic nuance particularly with acoustic instrument reproduction. I read Gamechanger uses "smart looping" algorithms or as Gamechanger calls it Real-Time Audio Sampling. Still a form of reverb minus the faster decay, perhaps with a small sonically unnoticeable glitch at the loop point. Has Gamechanger really got a new trick or could that staccato hammer effect be noticeable? The videos were playing sweet flowing non staccato laden music.