FREE!!! NICE IRISH FLUTE SAMPLE LIBRARY

[PavlovsCat]

2 hours ago, MarcL said:

That's the reason why I talked about sample standards that could be used of multiple providers. Me too, I don't like that NI has such a monopoly position in sample playing, even if I own Kontakt Full! I think common, open standards could help to provide more competition and would reduce absolute monopolies like this. 

Sadly, though, I know the reality is that will never happen. The scripting capabilities for KONTAKT are a strong differentiator for their sampler and demand for KONTAKT is primarily a result of the fact that so many high end sample developers create libraries that are specifically formatted for KONTAKT. You can say the same thing for UVI, even though its market share is incredibly smaller. Wait, I'm certain to get ripped on  for talking  business / marketing strategy. I did send the dev feedback and he seems like a really nice, down to earth guy. 

Edited March 12, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[Paul P]

1 hour ago, MarcL said:

That's the reason why I talked about sample standards that could be used of multiple providers. Me too, I don't like that NI has such a monopoly position in sample playing, even if I own Kontakt Full! I think common, open standards could help to provide more competition and would reduce absolute monopolies like this. 

As someone who participated in ISO commitees way back when, I completely agree.  Then too, all the work put into developing electronic document standards lost out to the narrow minded thinking of proprietary format owners (after 30 years we're still stuck with word and pdf).

We had (still have sort of) sfz as the standard for samples and players but that also lost the fight.

 

[PavlovsCat]

So I'm chatting with the developer (PMs on Facebook) and click on his personal page and realize that he's also the developer behind Xtant Audio, which makes KONTAKT libraries (some of which he's porting over to his Rhapsody player) and I'm a customer of Xtant Audio and actually gave the only testimonial I've ever done for a sample library. I didn't know him when I did that, I just thought his glockenspiel library for around $5 USD was really well done and a bargain and wanted to let others know. Here's his other business. 

https://xtant-audio.com/product-category/virtual-instruments/ 

Edited March 13, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[John1984]

6 hours ago, MarcL said:

That's the reason why I talked about sample standards that could be used of multiple providers. Me too, I don't like that NI has such a monopoly position in sample playing, even if I own Kontakt Full! I think common, open standards could help to provide more competition and would reduce absolute monopolies like this. 

(To get my thinking on this conveyed clearly, this ended up being a lot longer than I intended. There will always be disagreements on the foundational points involved in this topic of players and Kontakt's 800-pound gorilla status. )

I see this a bit differently. When I see the word "monopoly" I infer from its use some level of unfair coercion. I believe that the Kontakt platform is as popular as it is really comes down to so many sample library developers choosing to take NI up on a very capable platform provided at no licensing fees to use the full version, and (what I consider) reasonable fees to use the end user free Kontakt Player.

Someone has to pay the piper eventually to keep the platform rolling on. Native Instruments has invested loads in Kontakt to cover design, development, and marketing. I know I make purchasing decisions based on whether or not the library runs in Kontakt. I don't believe I am alone.  

While sample library developers are a valuable -- and voluntary -- part of the Kontakt ecosystem, I believe we users are an even more important component of that ecosystem; we pay for Kontakt, either directly or indirectly. If we wish to take advantage of the relatively lower (or free!) price of sample libraries that utilize the full version of Kontakt -- those libraries for which developers do not pony up the conversion and licensing fees -- we purchase the full version of Kontakt. If our preference is, instead, to use the free Kontakt Player exclusively, we still pay for the privilege in higher library costs. Due to NI conversion and licensing fees covering the very real and significant benefits afforded the developer and user, the end user always pays the costs one way or another. That's just business.

As to open standards, I would argue that the full version Kontakt does, in fact, offer as close to a open standard as we will likely see. If by "open standard" one means open sourced, that's different. Open source software tends to eliminate the built in competitive advantages that draw people to a commercial platform over another. And that tends to lessen or eliminate profits that are, in part, plowed back into improvements. The world is filled with tons of free, open source projects that haven't seen updates in years because there's no compensation other than a name on the credits. Good intentions and enthusiasm are rarely ever enough to sustain a development project.

As a user, I am not all that jazzed that I sometimes have no alternative to using vendor developed players (Soundpaint, Vienna Synchron, Spitfire, Ujam, plenty others.) I have a much higher level of confidence that Kontakt will continue to be supported and extended over time because there is stream of income enjoyed by NI to cover the costs. So, when I purchase a sample library I am buying into an ecosystem that I expect to support my investment into the future,

What are the underlying benefits for a sample library developer to not use Kontakt and, instead, develop a proprietary player? If it's an attempt to  minimize the possibility of piracy, were it me I would have to compare the costs of that against the cost of using an existing platform that modestly charges for that service. There is still a considerable hard cost associated with building a proprietary player competitive with Kontakt's features (not only as a player but also having an existing market of scripting folks,) and an insinuated responsibility to maintain it for users who have invested in the platform. I've seen NI's conversion and licensing fees and comparing those to what I know are the costs of software design, development and support. I find it difficult to justify not using Kontakt. Why else?

To bring this back to the topic of this thread, I am impressed with this library. I don't object to only being able to use it in their proprietary player because it is free to me. If I had to pay more than a nominal cost for the library, I'd likely pass. If I liked the library and thought I could use it on a project and it was offered on the Kontakt platform, I would be far more willing to pay for the value.

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by John1984