197,160 users have contributed to 43,056 threads and 258,545 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 3 new thread(s), 13 new post(s) and 59 new user(s).
Hi,
With the aim of studying Ravel's orchestration, I made my version of the first Promenade from the Tableax. It is all homorhythmic, so it is easy to see how timbral mixtures where created.
I used the VI Full libraries, with positioning and reverb all MIR. This is the "first final draft" of this mockup. While I let it settle, I submit it to the judgement and the hints of my fellow forum members.
Mussorgsky-Ravel - Tableaux - 01 Promenade
Paolo
Hi, very nice attemp to recreate this beautiful orchestrations. Firstly I think you only used Special Editions and than I read that you have full libraries. You definitely should use more articulations - in VST mockup world you often need to use quite bit different articulations that is not written in original score, just to achieve tme most realistic interpretations. for example on lead trumpet from beginning it seems you are using only legato, you can try to use portatos on that repetitions, it will sound more natural, etc.
As for MIR, what space you use? It sounds like in cathedral - I will use less reverb mix ratio overall. Do you also use MIRacle plugin or just MIR?
Icecubeman, thank you very much for listening!
I've used the full library, but with a limited number of articulations. This particular pieces seems to call for a very homogeneous sound, with the exception of the short melodic fragments.
I mostly alternated (with the solo trumpet and all the other instruments) between sustain vib, portato long, marcato. Sometimes I used portato short, staccato, and legato. At times I used prerecorded crescendos. Some notes that were portato/tenuto/détaché in the score sounded better with sustain played tenuto, instead that full lenght. And some legato notes was also better made with sustain.
Your remarks, however, make me investigate for alternative solutions. Obviously, you find that what I was hoping to be homogeneity to be bare flatness.
The MIR room I used was the Großer Saal of the Wiener Konzerthaus. And I added a compatible hint of MIRacle (with the wet signal very low) on the master. It is very reverberated, but the room is actually very reverberant. Maybe I can lower a little more the MIR web/dry mix, to see if it becomes clearer.
Thank you again!
Paolo
I used Koncerthaus MIR room for some years but not be satisfied. This room woas first and I think it is not very usable, the reveb sound very boxy. You need to reach for Synchron stage or Teldex rooms, they are much better. My advise is not to use Mirx versions - waste of money, you cant tweak them and they are pretty expensive compared to full versions.
Apart for how bad I may have used it, I'm not sure I dislike the Großer Saal pack. I think it is true to the few recordings I can find clearly referring to it. More than "boxy", I would say that this type of hall is "warm". That is, it has not that sparkle that is in more modern halls, like Teldex or Synchron.
As for any boxyness in my mockup, I could refer it to the use of compression. Yes, I admit I use compression! Without it, I feel the result is too uneven. I use parallel compression, to be sure the sound remains as natural as possible – but compressed sound will remain dominant.
In the new version I uploaded, I replaced the compressor with a different one, with the most transparent settings I could achieve. And parallel compression, here too. I don't know if it sounds more open. It's different, probably smoother and more pleasing, but I don't know if also more natural.
I also shortened the MIR reverb a bit (from 2.2 to 1.8 ms). All considered, I prefer, as you, shorter reverbs for this type of music.
Paolo
P Paul moved this topic from Orchestration & Composition on
