ermm, what exactly is,

up to far greater

velocity layers?
 
I think we're mixing velocity layers with articulations. Drum maps have 0 effect on velocity layers but obviously they will have an affect on articulations. BFD3 comes  with Key maps (same as drum maps) for addictive drums along with many others.
 
Steve

bitflipperThe biggest downside to SD2 versus BFD and Slate is that the samples are minimally processed, meaning it's more like mixing real drum recordings and takes a bit more time. Slate just sounds great out of the box with no fuss. But what some may consider a downside, I consider a big plus. Maybe I'm just a control freak, I dunno.

 
I'm baffled by this, BFD2 and BFD3 have 0 processing on any of their kits and never have had.
It's been discussed to death on here over the years.
 
I don't think BFD2 had any processing and BFD3 has included 2 "comp" channels which were recorded with a small amount of compression. These is optional and can be mixed in or muted to taste.
 
Slate on the other hand is very processed.
Very well processed I should add although a little too processed for my liking.
 
Steve

All I know is that occasionally (depending on the kits chosen) what sounded good in the source MID program (ie EZD) sounded wrong in the resultant program (ie BFD2). Almost like the level (velocity?) of a kit piece hit was considerably off between the two programs; either much softer or much louder.
 
I'm not speaking of overall kit level but on an individual kit piece hit basis.
 
As I said, OBO.

BTW, it did not happen to all EZD MIDI played by BFD2/3 just sometimes.
 
Again, OBO.
 

bapu
All I know is that occasionally (depending on the kits chosen) what sounded good in the source MID program (ie EZD) sounded wrong in the resultant program (ie BFD2). Almost like the level (velocity?) of a kit piece hit was considerably off between the two programs; either much softer or much louder.
 
I'm not speaking of overall kit level but on an individual kit piece hit basis.
 
As I said, OBO.

Ah, okay, that could be down to the dynamic range or loudness curve in BFD3.
There's a "loudness panel" in BFD3 where you can adjust the range, curve and velocity dynamics so this can make a big difference to how it will play with one midi file in two different drum vsti's.
 
The drums in both BFD2 and BFD2 were recorded very hot and so will sound much louder anyway, that's what I liked about it. The Platinum Sample stock BFD3 kits are much quieter in comparison but still louder than EZdrummer.
 
Steve

FWIW, this thread makes me happy I own EZD2, and it's all I need.

bitflipper
I'm trying to think of anything that SD2 lacks that a version 3 might address. It already gives you a ridiculous amount of control over bleeds and mic positions, and it has outstanding built-in effects. I'd like to be able to hide unused mixer channels, but that's about the only missing feature I can think of asking for.

Pretty much agree. For times when I use the SD2 mixer I'd like to see it scale up a bit more on screen. Also there's no question about the quality of the fx in SD2 if you want/need to use them. Over the years though I've refined how I set it up and use individual audio tracks in Sonar and mix and add fx there.

It would be nice to see some updates to Ez Player Pro.

mudgel

bitflipper
I'm trying to think of anything that SD2 lacks that a version 3 might address. It already gives you a ridiculous amount of control over bleeds and mic positions, and it has outstanding built-in effects. I'd like to be able to hide unused mixer channels, but that's about the only missing feature I can think of asking for.

Pretty much agree. For times when I use the SD2 mixer I'd like to see it scale up a bit more on screen. Also there's no question about the quality of the fx in SD2 if you want/need to use them. Over the years though I've refined how I set it up and use individual audio tracks in Sonar and mix and add fx there.

It would be nice to see some updates to Ez Player Pro.

I felt the same way when fxpasnion were canvassing BFD2 users as to what features they wanted to see in BFD3, all I could think of that BFD2 wasn't at that time was 64bit. But when you look at the feature set of BFD3 compared to SD 2 there must be things in there you'd like to see in SD2 surely?
 
There's quite a few things that BFD2 had that made it the choice for me over SD2, things that to me really matter like a global fx button as well as other global parameters. Host automation and one that I really appreciate is just never having to use drum maps. Editing the keymap in BFD3 is so smooth in comparison to using drum maps and the fact that all the kit pieces/note are just there in sonars piano roll and are continually updated when loading new kit pieces is a really significant advantage. I just went back to have a look at a drum map and set it up how I liked it, really not a nice experience compared to the keymap page in BFD3.
 
Steve

clintmartinI love the gui of BFD3, but I have no idea how hard or long it takes to setup a simple pattern from imagination to something I can play along with.

When you say, "set up a simple pattern" I'm guessing you mean using loops?
You can of course compose your own loops in the BFD3 groove editor which has some great and unique features but
I really wish it was full screen.
 
Using the supplied loops is exactly the same process as it is in EZdrummer or AD2, browse and audition loops/grooves from the song pallets, choose the ones you like and either drag them into sonar or into the BFD3 drum track from where you can drag the complete song as one midi file in to sonar's midi track.
 
As I said, earlier, you can drag a midi track from AD2 into a midi track in sonar and assign it to BFD3, then load up the keymap for AD2. Keymaps are great but not always precise and it maybe that AD2's key mapping is different from AD1.
 
Steve
 
Steve

twaddle

bapu
All I know is that occasionally (depending on the kits chosen) what sounded good in the source MID program (ie EZD) sounded wrong in the resultant program (ie BFD2). Almost like the level (velocity?) of a kit piece hit was considerably off between the two programs; either much softer or much louder.
 
I'm not speaking of overall kit level but on an individual kit piece hit basis.
 
As I said, OBO.

Ah, okay, that could be down to the dynamic range or loudness curve in BFD3.
There's a "loudness panel" in BFD3 where you can adjust the range, curve and velocity dynamics so this can make a big difference to how it will play with one midi file in two different drum vsti's.
 
The drums in both BFD2 and BFD2 were recorded very hot and so will sound much louder anyway, that's what I liked about it. The Platinum Sample stock BFD3 kits are much quieter in comparison but still louder than EZdrummer.
 
Steve

Steve,
 
Let me make an case based on what you said and what I believe happened to me.
 
Say the MIDI I choose was made against an EZD2 kit. And suppose that kit had 10 levels of hits on the snare. And let's say they range from -10db to 0db in 1db increments. I believe that when EZD2 receives a MIDI Velocity of 127 it will play the 0db (loudest) sample. When will it play the -1db sample? I suspect that will play the -1db sample when velocity is between 103 to 115 and so on down the MIDI veloity scale of 1-127. 
 
Now, say that same velocity is sent to BFD3 kit that has 20 levels of recorded hits ranging from -10db to 0db in .5db increments.
 
When will BFD3 play the loudest and when will it play the next loudest based on MIDI velocity? I assume it will play the loudest sample at 127 but will play the next loudest somewhere in the approx MIDI velocity of 115-121.
 
Will each MIDI velocity produce the same audio output level assuming all "audio" parameters are equal in both EZD2 and BFD3. IOW a 127 MIDI velocity in both systems would be "balanced" to achieve a 0db level. Then what happens to both systems as the receive each midi velocity down the scale. Will the both produce the same db output. I highly suspect not because what would be the point of some kits that that tout have more sample layers than other kits?
 
I suppose that the number of audio level samples for toms is less than snares and within toms that may vary (ie less samples for lowest pitched tom vs the highest pitched) and that cymbals are less audio samples than toms. Get my drift (see what I did there).
 
Maybe I am misunderstanding the relationship of the audio levels and number of samples per kit piece to the received MIDI velocity by the drum host. But that is the best explanation for what I was sure I was hearing when I used another manufacturers supplied MIDI for a specific kit mapped into another drum host using a "similar" tyoe kit (IOW I was not using a Jazz MIDI from EZD2 to run a Metal Kit in BFD3).
 
And again, this is OBO based on what I heard when I took an EZD2 MIDI file and mapped it in BFD3. It wasn't an overall drum kit level as was one of your supposition but a weirdness in the relative volumes of the kit pieces within the context of kits chosen for the two hosts.
 
If all drum hosts had the same number of audio samples and interpreted the MIDI velocity exactly the same I wiould expect the same MIDI in both hots to sound the same (in relative kit piece context) between the two hosts. But I believe that this is not the case and therefore some sample libraries tout their sample layer counts (are these what you are referring to as articulations?).