The basic flaw simply is - according to my opinion - that the end result doesn’t sound good. Or making it sound good afterjust curious: what's wrong with the mapping? especially if you've made '40 attempts' to make kits... what needs tweaking? what is 'walking in the dark'?Must say, I have to agree with nanostream. I have owned the Atlas from the version one onwards, tried to like it. Made at least 40 attemps with different set of kit samples/sounds, spent hours with the software. But the result is: the mapping doesn’t work good enough, too much tweaking, walking in the dark.
I get better results with the 15 other drum applications own, with a fraction of time.
Good if the product fits to your workflow, to mine, not with this level of ”AI”.
i make kits, usually use sep outs to eq etc as needed... and work. seems pretty simple.
1.the ”AI” has generated the mapping
2, you let the the system to create the drum kit
to make the final result sound good requires a lot of manual tweaking.
Its easier the do the whole process manually from the scratch. E.g. by creating a Live drum rack in the Live channel, and then choose each kit piece sound to the rack from your Live sound library/your purchased drum exterbal sound library grouped in kcks, snares, toms, higats etc.
What is the add on value of the Atlas ”AI” if it isn’t capable to create the mapping in the way, that once you generate the kit based on mapped kit piece categories, the end result of the kit sounds 80-90 % good?
But as said, if you are happy with the Atlas, good for you. So far the AI which ”listens” the sound and makes the ”kit piece group universe”, isn’t good enough, in my opinion.
Statistics: Posted by Harry_HH — Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:16 pm