Not when you're composing?
When I compose, I need all time and concentration for getting the idea into the box as fast as possible.
.
-
When I compose, I need all time and concentration for getting the idea into the box as fast as possible.
.
-
That's a great tip you just gave.
That's not a tip, that's how we all work eversince.
Thanks for the training then since I didn't have that knowledge [:)]
Thanks again for being so patient.
Once you understand it, it feels obvious though!
Vincent
-
-
Hi Angelo,
there are three more questions, I have:
1. When U describe
"III. The measured loudness of an orchestra recording
The decibel values are from a recording who has dynamics from ppp (as soft as possible) to fff (as loud as possible):
ff = -12.5 dB RMS (as loud as possible)*
mf = -18.0 dB RMS (normal loudness, not loud)
mp = -20.0 dB RMS (normal loudness, not soft)
pp = -27.0 dB RMS (soft)
ppp = -48.0 dBFS Peak (as soft as possible)"
These values are before setting your track faders and sample patches to -6dB, right?
2. Since using reverb and track-positioning, my instruments change their original volume. So this is why it would be helpfull to know the dynamic range of e.g. the VI-16 after setting the volume faders and inserting reverb and other plugins.
To avoid an answer like "It depens on the song...", how are the dynamic ranges of your instruments (ariving at master output) in the Sunrise_master?
3. Why do I change the single tracks an not the sum-output by 6 dB?
-
1. When U describe
"III. The measured loudness of an orchestra recording
The decibel values are from a recording who has dynamics from ppp (as soft as possible) to fff (as loud as possible):
ff = -12.5 dB RMS (as loud as possible)
mf = -18.0 dB RMS (normal loudness, not loud)
mp = -20.0 dB RMS (normal loudness, not soft)
pp = -27.0 dB RMS (soft)
ppp = -48.0 dBFS Peak (as soft as possible)
These values are before setting your track faders and sample patches to -6dB, right?
No!
The values in the loudness table are the circa minimum to maximum dynamic. This values are as measured on a finished stereo master who is mixed with wide range dynamics. Most orchestral classical recordings have an approximately min/max dynamic range as in this loudness table.
.
-
2. Since using reverb and track-positioning, my instruments change their original volume.
I don't use any additional 3D positioning tool. I checked them once and didn’t like the sound.
I make all the 3D positioning and phantom source in the stereo field "by hand" as in the old days, and without any additional plugin.
.
-
So this is why it would be helpfull to know the dynamic range of e.g. the VI-16 after setting the volume faders and inserting reverb and other plugins.
To measure every single instrument seperately, that would to be too much work, work who would not produce meaningful and helpful results for the mixer.
The most basic and important thing for the mixer are:
a) that the balance of all instrument track combine to a good stereo master.
b) that at the master stereo fader no artefacts are produced during printing a mix, i.e. dB 0+ values or severe clipping.
c) The stereo master has the required/wanted musical dynamics.
This may sound a little dry, and as if mixing is a boring process, but everybody who mixes knows that it is an extension of composing, quasi the last arranging.
In my case, the wanted dynamics are always “wide range,” similar to the dynamics a recording made in a concert hall or studio has. Whenever a stereo master has to be volume maximized, i.e. for tv-spots, then we do that in a second work process, this simply because we want to own a wide range dynamic master, otherwise we could process the additional maximizing plugin chain right on the stereo master fader and print the mix mastered.
My proposed system for mixing a wide range stereo master is nothing new, but a description of what every mixing engineer work consist of since decade.
.
-
...", how are the dynamic ranges of your instruments (ariving at master output) in the Sunrise_master?
The "Sunrise" stereo master is the reference track after which the loudness table in question was made. The loudness values in the table accurately represent what the loudnesses are at the stereo master fader while printing the mix.
I chosed this track, because the overall dynamics can be easely measured and also visually be followed on the meter and wave editor, this since the recording has a gradually raising loudness from the beginning to the end.
.
-
To avoid an answer like "It depens on the song…
No, it doesn’t depend on a single song!
I depends on an overarching dynamic concept. A dynamic concept who permitts to record and mix song after song, for years and years. And where on a future compact disc, any song, no matter if produced years ago or just yesterday, will fit between any song, and this without level adjustment or loudness modification.
.
-
The original discussion thread is closed, so I'll post here and you can move it if you like.
To me, the challenge is not total orchestra dynamics. The dynamics of the full orchestra can be compressed (for film scores) and is subject to taste. What is much more interesting to me is relative dynamics inside the orchestra. I've searched for a chart that shows dB SPL for individual instruments at several dynamic levels. For example,
Trumpet, pp: 51
Trumpet, mf: 75
Trumpet, f: 93
Oboe, f: 77
...etc.
I would assume that some university grad student must have done this, but I could not find a paper after several google searches. Simply a list of instruments playing forte (perhaps muted and unmuted) would be useful. The instruments could be then be balanced in our templates. There's also the concern of relative volume versus pitch (a low forte C on trumpet will be softer than forte C an octave or two above), but this is hopefully built into the sample and outside our control in VI.
"Use your ears" is a valid response to this question, but empirical data is always nice to start from. Perhaps VSL could provide this data on their stage if it doesn't already exist. [:)]
Thomas J Bergersen talked about this relative balance in his column for Virtual Instruments mag. Once the relative balance is complete, then the combined dynamics can be studied.
-
"Use your ears" is a valid response to this question...
That's what is left to do when it comes to what you call "relativ dynamics," if I understand that terminology right.
.
-
@synthetic said:
That's the reason why we need to balance the instrument levels (and panning) ourselves. Even a chart that's within 10dB would be helpful.
+/- 10 dB SPL difference is doubling or halve the perceived loudness.
Synthetic, and all the others… I do not see the advantage when knowing the absolute loudness and absolute dynamics of each instruments in dB SPL, and this for all register and in all relative dynamics performed from ppp to fff.
I read quite a few time about the request to have a template for “relativ dynamics,” but I do not understand what purpose it could serve, or what exactly this template purpose could be. To me, this template would be in theory completly useless, and in practice impossible to make.
What do I miss to understand what you mean by “relative dynamic,” and having a table with dB SPL, and the advantage to have that values in a template available for composing and mixing?
.
-
advantage to have that values in a template available for composing and mixing?
The advantage is that when you play a chordal pad on clarinets, french horns and cellos, the clarinets don't overwhelm the other sections in volume because that wouldn't happen in a real setting. Since sample libraries are always optimized to max volume, it's up to us to balance them to each other. A chart that said that clarinets at forte are 12dB quieter than horns at forte, for example, would allow the composer to set their clarinets to -18dB on the channel meter (allowing headroom) and horns at -6dB. When they play together, the balance should be close. For those of us who don't spend as much time with real orchestras, a balance guide would be useful. More useful to me than a chart that shows how loud the total orchestra should be.
-
@synthetic said:
The advantage is that when you play a chordal pad on clarinets, french horns and cellos, the clarinets don't overwhelm the other sections in volume because that wouldn't happen in a real setting. Since sample libraries are always optimized to max volume, it's up to us to balance them to each other. A chart that said that clarinets at forte are 12dB quieter than horns at forte, for example, would allow the composer to set their clarinets to -18dB on the channel meter (allowing headroom) and horns at -6dB. When they play together, the balance should be close. For those of us who don't spend as much time with real orchestras, a balance guide would be useful.
Something like that?
Valve Horn 1th to 6th
1st Horn distance to mic 9,0 meter
Direction -5°
Dynamics: ppp = -43.0 dB rms, fff = -16.5 dB rms
6th Horn distance to mic 9,5 meter
Direction +12°
Dynamics: ppp = -42.0 dB rms, fff = -16.9 dB rms
Clarinet 1th to 4th
Distance 1st Clarinet to the mic 6,5 meter
Direction 1st to 4th clarinet -5° to +9°
Dynamics: ppp = -48.0 dB rms, fff = -17.1 dB rms
Celli 9:
Distance to microphone 2,5 meter to 6.5 meter
Direction 50° to 65°
Dynamics: ppp = -52.0 dB rms, fff = -17.5 dB rms
_______________________________________________
But what would be the parameterization for the measurement in order to make the chart?
1) A symphony orchestra in a recording situation, who becomes your template?
2 At which point would you measure this "relative loudness? Would the measurement be made with one stereo microphone only, or a decca tree?
4) How wide is the stereo basis of the to be measured orchestra, or will you stay withhin the stereo basis the VSL samples have? What is the stereo basis of the VSL samples?
5) What do you want to achiev in your mix? Is the goal to copy a recording of a real orchestra, or do we want to invent our own virtual music?
________________________________________________
Even if VSL would give us this loudness information, as they are in the silent stage, the dB SPL's wouldn't be of much use to the composer and mixer; because the seating plan of a real orchestra is already a balancing; where the silent stage does not copy this situation, but rather records all instruments from an uniform distance we don't know.
To me, working with VSL is like mixing a multitracking session with spot mics at every single instrument and group, then it is decided in the mix how loud an instrument is overall in the mix.
I remember when the Berliner Phil's where recorded for the first time with a digital 32-tracks machine. The engineer had tremendous problems to balance the multitracks, compared to what a single stereo microphone balances almost automatically.
.
-
Something like that?
Valve Horn 1th to 6th
1st Horn distance to mic 9,0 meter
Direction -5°
Dynamics: ppp = -43.0 dB rms, fff = -16.5 dB rms
6th Horn distance to mic 9,5 meter
Direction +12°
Dynamics: ppp = -42.0 dB rms, fff = -16.9 dB rms
Clarinet 1th to 4th
Distance 1st Clarinet to the mic 6,5 meter
Direction 1st to 4th clarinet -5° to +9°
Dynamics: ppp = -48.0 dB rms, fff = -17.1 dB rms
Celli 9:
Distance to microphone 2,5 meter to 6.5 meter
Direction 50° to 65°
Dynamics: ppp = -52.0 dB rms, fff = -17.5 dB rms
_______________________________________________
But what would be the parameterization for the measurement in order to make the chart?
1) A symphony orchestra in a recording situation, who becomes your template?
5) What do you want to achiev in your mix? Is the goal to copy a recording of a real orchestra, or do we want to invent our own virtual music?
.
To me something similar to that chart would help a lot. My situation is more like wanting to copy a special song than wanting to invent something new.
So imagine I like the mix of a special song and I want to make mine sound very similar. Since I don´t have every instrument I hear in the piece, that I want to copy, playing solo, it´s hard for me, to know, how loud it is playing, cause it might sound louder, beeing supported by other instruments.
So indeed for me it would be most important to know the relative levels, for example by someone telling me:
At your master output (which has everything, concerning position, etc. allready calculated) a flute plays a pp at - 20 db and a ff at - 6 db. A solo violin plays..., the HO-4_marcato play at, and so on.
I don´t see, why this should not be helpful for beginners, not having worked with real orchestras.
So if anyone would take the time and analyze one of his example-pieces, I think, there´d be a lot of guys, beeing really grateful!
-
IV. Dynamic Indications - Velocity to dBFS
Sounds stupid, but I´m affraid, I still did not get everything right. What is the difference between "db RMS" and "db FS"? In my Logic master output I have a number, saying e.g. -4.1, which I consider to be the db RMS, while above there´s the peak. So when I play the VI-14_mV_sus_p-ff at maximum, where should the peak in the master output be? And if it is possible to tell this number, where is the peak for other instruments such as HO-4_sus or VA-10_mV_sus, playing at maximum in your example mix? Wouldn´t this kind of answer the question about relative levels quite easyly at least for this song?
This PDF visualizes the MIDI velocity and the produced decibel of the four layer string patch VI-14_mV_sus_p-ff. The produced maximum peak is -7.5 dB in the ff layer, and the minimum is -36.7 dB with the pp layer.
download link:
http://vsl.co.at/upload/users/57/Dynamic_Indications_Velocity_to_dBFS.pdf
.
-
You mention Logic, I guess you mean LogicPro on a Mac; I don’t know what the meter in LogicPro is reading.
The RMS value of -4.1 is way to loud, I guess this reading displays peak. Extremly volume maximized rock music may reach -6.8 dB RMS, but that is not sounding very pleasant.
-