Oh thanks to the sample god and you... I grabbed a 2014 version of the manual... thank you, I'll try it out with the new values. :)

Kind regards,
Lukas

Hello Dietz,

I have been using the 2014 version of the Natural Volume Table so far, and now took a look on the newer (2015) version. Obviously, some recently released instruments (solo voices for example) have been added, but there have been changes made also to some existing instruments, namely the Orchestral Strings, which alle have their db offset decreased by 3db (-9 instead of -12 for the violins), and the trombones.

But also some Instruments are completely missing in the new table. So, please shed some light on this:

- The Appassionata Strings (-6, -8, -7 and -7 in the 2014 Version) are missing

- Dimension Brass (only Tenor Trombones sordino are listed)

Finally, there are some patches called "Sections" (not ensembles). For example, what is meant by "11 Section Solo Strings"?

And I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the offsets with respect to the percussion. At medium volume of the orchestra I set the cymbals on 27 velocity to obtain a balanced result... I mean... I trust the MIRx offset list, but... it's making me wonder none the less. :D

The list is meant as an additional service - the actual values are available in MIR Pro and MIRx anyway. I will try to make sure that the list gets updated ASAP, though.

Kind regards,

@Dietz said:

Orchestra Violins and Orchestra Basses are both listed with -9dB for MIR's Natural Volume feature. Please see [url=http://eu.vsl.co.at/downloader.aspx?FileID=67923]p. 36 of the MIRx Manual[/url]. HTH,

Thanks for pointing that out. As I wrote above: The manual needs an update. :-)

Kind regards,

Thanks for your help!

And... it's awesome that you even share this list of offsets etc. That's not to be taken for granted.

Is there, by the way, ever a scenario in which I use the percussion at maximum velocity? Because it seems that, if I turn down the volume enough to avoid hearing damage, I can't hear the rest of the orchestra for most of the time. :P

... pretty much what would happen on a stage with an orchestra when you stand near a Tamtam being hit at fff.    🌩️ 

😉

Note to myself: Never stand next to a Tamtam being hit at fff. ;D

@Dietz said:

... pretty much what would happen on a stage with an orchestra when you stand near a Tamtam being hit at fff.    

So for clarification: The natural Volume adjusts the volume levels as they would occur when every instrument of a live performance would be close-miked? So when applying these values without MIR I would have to further decrease the volume values of the individual sections according to how far they sit from the listening position, is that correct?

I hardly dare to say "yes" - unless you promise not to use these values as rules, but rather as starting points for your own settings. :-)

Kind regards,

I think you're trying to formalize all that a bit too much, guys. The Natural Volume values are a good starting point - for a pre-configured template, for example - but not a set-in-stone scientific formula for a perfect mix. Don't overthink it! If something's too loud, turn it down.

@Another User said:

I think you're trying to formalize all that a bit too much, guys. The Natural Volume values are a good starting point - for a pre-configured template, for example - but not a set-in-stone scientific formula for a perfect mix. Don't overthink it! If something's too loud, turn it down.

I, personally, am perfectly aware that I'm "formalizing" here, but it's important you stress that! 😊 However, and I can speak just for myself, my experience in this field is so little that I need such formulas for starting points. Some kind of guidance to compensate for a lack of knowledge.
If one tells me, "those are good basic settings, leave those settings untouched, because that's the way it is, but fiddle around with these to your liking", then I'm happy. (Which happened here. :P)

With the MIRx offsets, for instance, I feel that the flutes are too soft. So are the oboes and clarinets. Yesterday, I heard a rehearsal at the Musikverein in Wien and I tried to focus on the woodwinds for that matter. I could clearly hear the flute at all times but wasn't really able to distinguish the clarinet and oboe from the rest of the orchestra. My fried told me that, generally, the latter two need to be exposed and separated by the composer/orchestrator to be clearly audible, otherwise they just color the tone or merge with the violas for instance. --> turning the flutes up in my mixer would have been the right choice, possibly. But turning up oboes and clarinets maybe not (in my particular case they play in the same register as some other instruments)... do you see where this is going? 😄

All the best,
Lukas

PS.: I LOVE this forum... 😄

@LuCsa said:

My fried told me that, generally, the latter two need to be exposed and separated by the composer/orchestrator to be clearly audible, otherwise they just color the tone or merge with the violas for instance. --> turning the flutes up in my mixer would have been the right choice, possibly. But turning up oboes and clarinets maybe not (in my particular case they play in the same register as some other instruments)... do you see where this is going?

Not fully sure. 😊 But the bottom line here, I think, is that ultimately this is more a matter of orchestration and arrangement, than of settings and values. Of course, Woodwinds often blend in for orchestral color, or round off the edges. But then again, they're used as conveyors of central musical ideas, exposed lines and virtuosic passages just as well. And whether they stick out or blend in - isn't it entirely up to the intention of the composer and has everything to do with the number of players, the "architecture" of the composition, if/who doubles whom and which musical function everyone else in the ensemble has been assigned to?

Woodwinds are used for all kinds of things - color, texture, melodies, solos, harmony, ostinati, ornaments, runs and flourishes ... and they blend (or don't) with other instruments to manifold effect. surely you can't follow one general rule for all these highly distinct applications and their "mechanics".

I personally use MIRx most of the time, and I do have natural volume activated across the board. But I can't remember a single project where I left CC11 as well as the mixer faders untouched - there's always something I need to change. And it's never the same either 😊

A software can provide a reasonable starting point, but it can't "know" what music you're writing. It's helpful, it provides a guideline, but unfortunately (?) it can't keep us in safe waters until we have gained a somewhat reliable ability of judgement, or relieve us of the need for it.

So in the end it does come down to: knowing what you want to hear and what is possible/reasonable (although we may take the liberty to disregard this in the world of sampling every now and then) and adjusting settings accordingly. Which, in turn, requires a lot of listening to music, analyzing and learning. You're obviously doing that anyway.

As much as it is an annoying truism - the whole "use your ears!" engineering mantra really is the answer to a lot of questions ... well kind of 😊

@JimmyHellfire said:

[...] there's always something I need to change. And it's never the same either 😊 [...]

This. 👍

Some here are confusing Natural Volume with Artistic Volume. Artistic Volume is a matter of taste. There are no rules. Use your ears. This is art, and it's all about the artists.

Natural Volume, in contrast, is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of simulation of a real orchestra in a real room. The simulation is either accurate or it's not. This is science, and it has nothing to do with artistic preference.

@tek0010 said:

Natural Volume, in contrast, is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of simulation of a real orchestra in a real room. The simulation is either accurate or it's not. This is science, and it has nothing to do with artistic preference.

It's accurate enough. You'll still have to use your ears - artist or not. That's just the reality of it. And we're not talking about "taste" either, but about function.

"Science" is a big word here. As well as "simulation". How accurate can the simulation of natural volume be, if the whole of the instrument in the simulation is represented by merely a few velocity layers? Just one example. There are so many factors that play into this.

@Dietz said:

I hardly dare to say "yes" - unless you promise not to use these values as rules, but rather as starting points for your own settings. 😊

Kind regards,

Well, of course it is only a starting point, but this information is absolutely crucial. As a rule of thumb one can say that the volume is reduced by half ( which means -6db) when the distance is doubled. So, if you sit in the 1st row and have the strings sitting 4m in average away from you while the brass is 8m apart and the tamtam 10 there would be an offset of 6db for the brass and maybe another one, totaling 7db for the percussion.

In reality, things are slighty more complex than that. There's some interesting, highly condensed information available on this famous site:

-> http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculatorSonephon.htm

... this is a short quote from that page that gives us something to chew on:

@Another User said:

"Set the volume of the radio double as loud or half as loud." Who does not know, how to do this, is a normal person. Psycho-acousticians are telling us, that it has to be 10 dB level difference. Try to cool your hot coffee to the point "half as hot" - and think it over. Your own feeling may be much different to other persons.

An increase from 6 dB to 10 dB is perceived by most listeners as "double" the volume. These sensations are highly subjective, meaning that different people will hear this in different ways, and "twice as loud" is a much harder thing to guess than something.

The human perception of loudness is perceived differently from each subject. In other words it is one's own perception of sound and it is subjective of sound pressure level SPL.