EXS Instrument levels

[Nigel Watson]

(Sorry, don't know how to link threads, this came from:
can somone suggest instrument attenuations...
on VSL Forum)

This is a useful thread: I often find that I have to raise the master output level on EXS Instruments when mastering (to improve S/N Ratio). I think that the standard EXS level setting of -6db for Instruments may be too conservative. Most of these instruments in an orchestral arrangement will be playing single or dual-not lines at most, so the likelihood of digital overload should be very small.

It would be useful to have standard level settings for instrument groups, that would speed up the mixing process.

I think I'll also post this on the Mixing/PostPro Forum

Nigel

[Dietz]

Nigel,

in an native 32-bit floating point environment like Logic it would be enough to raise the master-fader by the desired amount. Even in sonically more restricted situations like DAE/ProTools based systems the SNR shouldn't pose a problem.

The noise floor our our samples themselves is typically below -100 dBFS (.... or about -95 dBFS for 16 bit editions, taking the dither into account).


/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

[Nigel Watson]

Dietz, thanks for the reply!

Noise isn't really a problem with virtual instruments, certainly when compared to analogue mixing using MIDI samplers and sound modules.
And VSL recordings are very "clean" [:D]
All the same, when mastering I assume a higher average level means a higher average resolution - is that correct?

My post was really about two things:

1. How the standard levels of Orchestral instruments could, or perhaps should, be set to simplify mixing (i.e, the brass would always be louder than the woodwinds for the same given dynamic level ), i.e a kind of "standard relative levels template".

2. Maximising available gain/resolution (if these are one and the same) by having Sampler Instrument default levels in EXS24 set as high as possible.
I notice, for instance, that VSL Instruments are generally set to -6db; I wonder whether it would be useful to set that to 0-db.

One more question:
Can you please explain why Logic is less "sonically restricted" than DAE/ProTools based systems ?

Appreciate your feedback.

Nigel

[Nigel Watson]

Perhaps you missed my question, but I'd appreciate knowing what you meant about "sonic restrictions" of DAE/ProTools systems.

Thanks

Nigel

[Dietz]

Haha, shaky ground ahead! [H]

Modern native DAWs rely on 32-bit floating-point audio engines, while the "ancient" ProT**ls is still fixed comma. This means that practically you can't overload the audio bus of a native DAW internally, as you have a theoretical headroom of about 1600 dB. With ProTools, you have to reduce levels internally to keep the signal path clean.

This was even more noticable with pre-HD-systems, which had to sub-sum a mix internally as soon as you had more than a certain amount of paths active, just to pass this submix to the next instance of the DSP-mixer: each time, the signal has to be scaled volume-wise. The final signal was often described as "small", "cramped", "harsh", and so on. (.... things are better now in this respect since DigiDesign tried to catch up on lost ground with HD.)

There are some other aspects to this topic that would lead too far away from the scope of this forum, but I'm sure that there are _many_ folks on the [URL=http://forum.nuendo.com]Nuendo-board[/URL], for example, who will happily discuss this in-depth :-] ... or maybe [URL=http://235.deatech.at/phpBB2/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=458]Nika Aldrich[/URL], who appeared on our site already, can jump in with much higher knowledge than me (and a dedicated pro-ProTools attitude, contrary to my obviously not so enthousiastic opinion ;-])

HTH,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

[Nick Batzdorf]

You can certainly overload plug-ins, but according to what the guy said at a Digidesign seminar at AES, it's not true that you can overload the mix bus. I have a PDF of what he said, if you're interested.

[Nigel Watson]

Dietz, thanks for clarifying, I can see how that might be "controversial" [[;)]] But - Nick ?- surely the question is, is PT floating-point, or fixed comma?As I understand it, the floating point system does protect against internal overloads, right?


Dietz: sorry to be so persistent, but do you have an answer to/opinion about the original questions from my post please? - they were:

1. How the standard levels of Orchestral instruments could, or perhaps should, be set to simplify mixing (meaning for instance,the brass would always be louder than the woodwinds for the same given dynamic level, such as mf ), i.e a kind of "standard relative levels template".

2. Maximising available gain/resolution (if these are one and the same) by having Sampler Instrument default levels in EXS24 set as high as possible.
I notice, for instance, that VSL Instruments are generally set to -6db; I wonder whether it would be useful to set that to 0-db.

************************************************************
Thanks

Nigel

[Dietz]

Nigel,

I asked Christan Kardeis, one of our EXS mapping experts, to jump in with educated answers (being no EXS user myself).

BTW: Everybody is kindly invited to discuss this topic, not just me ... ;-]

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

[Nick Batzdorf]

@Another User said:

But - Nick ?- surely the question is, is PT floating-point, or fixed comma?As I understand it, the floating point system does protect against internal overloads, right?

Fixed punctuation, but they maintain there's enough headroom to have every fader all the way up without clipping it. Plug-ins stir the waters quite a bit, though, so it's not like you can go BAF with abandon.

BAF: Boost All Frequencies