stanlea wrote: nilshi wrote:
I don't think so. The bottleneck is recording the instruments, not the programming side.
The success of Kontakt is based on its power on scripts, no ?
The success of Kontat *compared to other sample hosts* is based on scripts. That and that samples are encrypted which seems to be a rather good copy protection up to today. The timely death of the Gigastudio helped as well to create a power vacuum. All these and more were not open file formats though and couldn't be used in Linux, except .gig, but practically only after the format was relevant.
However, this has little to do with the motivation to get samples created. People do not create sample banks because they are dissatisfied with the flexibility of the file format.. They don't do it because it is technically hard, demands a lot of skill, time, patience and attention and cannot be solved by programming but only by money. Adding more complexity in the form of scripts will not create the motivation for people suddenly creating new instruments. They would have done so already. There are no good acoustic samples of anything but the most basic instruments like piano and drums because these are difficult to record in the first place
Scripting does not make the sound better. There are a few ""upcycling"-tricks of course, but they are mostly "I did it because it was possible". The resulting sound will not sound any better than what you can achieve without scripts, effects and a bit of elbow-grease already.
Scripting only becomes relevant when there are many recorded samples, on top of the already hundreds and thousands of samples for normal notes, that need to be chosen dynamically. For example a script that analyses for a guitar sample if a fret change is likely at this change between notes and plays it. And even that may not be a real example because it requires look ahead in the midi data. But it was the first sample for "intermediate sounds" that I could think of which is not too obscure.