Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

200,231 users have contributed to 43,194 threads and 259,062 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 3 new post(s) and 75 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Orchestration & Composition
  3. Your Music
  4. Setting up a Standardized Wide Range Dynamic Environment
  • A
    A
    last edited
    last edited

    @Felix Bartelt said:

    Quite easy: Imagine, you are Hans Werner Henze, standing in front of the orchestra, ready to start playing. Then U say: "Stop! I want every single instrument or section (such as the HO-4) play its loudest note allone!" Result: If the VI-16_mV play the loudest possible G3 at - 13 db, the VA-10_mV reach a peak of - 16 db, the single horn reaches - 20 db and so on. If U transfer this situation to your setup: U have everything set to start composing (all volumes, reverbs, pans, etc.). Even if U plan to automate your volume faders afterwards, it is still a setup, U consider to be a good mix to start with, no matter what velocity the single instruments might play later. So as soon as you are confident with your mix, stop it at any time of your work to check, what maximum peak every single instrument is able to play. Then all people like me would have something very good to start with, because I would just have to adjust the volume levels. In my situation, not knowing the relative levels, I might set the HO-4 volume fader too loud and later on balance that in a false way by letting them play mf instead of ff. Do you see my point?

    A-HA - We are not talking about the same matter.

    I see now what you mean, but that is what we call absolute dynamic (Felix sez: "play its loudest note"). But there is a difference between absolute and relative dynamic.
  • A
    A

    Relative dynamic of a musical instrument is the total loudness range. For example measured over the full range, and each step played as soft as possible plus as loud as possible. This aquired dynamic data can be presented in envelope graph (for example as in Jürgen Meie book "Akustik und musikalische Aufführungspraxis"). This data helps the engineer to place the microphone at the proper spot in various recording situations.

    There are several reasons why relative and absolute dynamic data would be unsatisfying in build a dynamic orchestra default setting. One of the main reasons is what is called "distant cue in closed rooms" - this is the spatial information stored in a stereophonic recoding who tells us how far away the source is.
  • F
    F
    Sorry, didn´t know that. So I guess I´m talking about the relation of the single absolute peaks to eachother. Knowing this would really help a lot to have something to start with. As I said: I can get my mix balanced quite o.k., but I might be doing it in a wrong way, cause I choose instruments to play pianissimo having the level of a forte, because I set a too high volume level. I´m o.k. with reverb and eq settings, but I don´t see myself able to make the right volume level setup, by listening to references, cause I have no idea, if the flute, I´m hearing, is playing mf or forte or if it´s even two flutes playing. That´s why I hope to get some help from orchestra guys, knowing, what peak every single instrument is able to reach in a common orchestral seating. Since I like any of your mixes, the peaks of any of your songs would help.
  • C
    C

    I agree with what Felix is asking for. I don't think Angelo has this information though. If he did he would have simply posted it by now. The debates about WHY this information wouldn't be accurate or helpful are drifting further into obscurity. If anyone does have this information though please share it with us. It would be enormously helpful as many have pointed out.

    Thanks!

    Rob
  • A
    A
    last edited
    last edited

    @CommanderFunk_28576 said:

    I agree with what Felix is asking for. I don't think Angelo has this information though. If he did he would have simply posted it by now. The debates about WHY this information wouldn't be accurate or helpful are drifting further into obscurity. If anyone does have this information though please share it with us. It would be enormously helpful as many have pointed out.

    Thanks!

    Rob

    No, I don't have this information. I think nobody ever made this measurements.

    I guess what you want is, that some one writes down the values from the software meter for each orchestra instrument playing the loudest possible sound when the recording setup is one stereo microphone in a concert hall. The measurement in the mentioned book "Akustik und musikalische Aufführungspraxis" is not made in that way, but each instrument is measured from same distance, similar as the VSL samples are made.

    .
  • C
    C

    Hey Angelo,

    Those measurements may be useful though as well. VSL was normalized so your data would be very helpful. You could calculate the diff. and let the panning/narrowing reverb etc take care of the rest. It would require more tweaking but what you describes sounds like it would be great!

    Thanks again!

    Rob
  • C
    C

    "The debates about WHY this information wouldn't be accurate or helpful are drifting further into obscurity."

    Oh, No!  We can't have that!!

    Ahem, to illuminate:

    Two reasons why a standardized environment is moot:

    1.  Every mix is different.  There is not one environment.  There is not one method of recording an orchestra.  There is not one method of mic'ing an orchestra.  There is not one method of playing each instrument.  There are as many dynamic ranges of an instument or ensemble as there are players and ensembles.

    2.  Sample mockups with VSL are especially variable (and customizable=this is GOOD) because of the normalized, silent stage process.  Why limit yourself by Standardizing (bastardizing) variables, thus limiting the potential?

    CAVEAT:

    This does not mean that you can't have a "starting point."  For me, this means setting up general levels at -15 to -20 (in Logic), general pannng, general reverb type and level, etc.

    The only other exception is if you want to emulate a particular recording.  To which I say, Listen, Listen, Listen.  Take the time to get the same reverb, e.q., DYNAMIC RANGE, and everything else.  Then make a template from that that says "John Williams Jaws Temp" or whatever.

    Liberty and Freedom for all!

    Clark
  • C
    C

    Think about it: Dynamic Range is a non-issue.  Every recording ever made has been subjected to (tape or channel) compression, mixing of near and far mics, soloist gets their mic raised for eight bars then ducked down again.  Newer recordings are 20-100 tracks.  Probably all automated and compressed with extra reverb, e.q., EVERYTHING.

    If you don't have the ears or arranging sensabilities to understand how instruments blend or behave together you need to go back to school.

    Clark
  • C
    C
    Before I get flamed I would like to admit that ranges could be HELPFUL, but hardly definitive. Missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Context will change everything. That is why there are no measurements that Felix and others are interested in seeing. Unless you made these measurements with every symphony on every stage with every microphone with every preamp in every style of playing every instrument. Respectfully rebelious, Clark
  • C
    C
    WTF? First I can't edit my post then there are no paragraphs. GRRRR. ---Last sentence should start with "It would only be definitive if...(you made these measurements with every symphony...)"
  • C
    C
    Sorry for all the posts, guys, can't edit.------While you all want to know how this all operates in context on stage, don't forget that it all falls apart when we talk about range vs. dynamics, timbre vs. dynamics, and how this is manipulated in real time IN CONTEXT OF THE MUSIC by a professional musician to balance chords/textures.
  • F
    F

    To be honest, this discussion about having the startup levels being useful or not, let´s me think, that there are other reasons for not telling the levels. Don´t get me wrong! I think it´s absolutely o.k. to keep some mixing secrets and most of you guys gave more hints, I expected to get.

    But: Please don´t come up with the same arguments like, every mix is different or listen to orchestrations yourself!

    1. Not all instruments of VSL have the right level and the right level relation to eachother out of the box. (Example: Solo violin compared to VI-16). So every instrument may be changed in master output level, may it be, by using the volume fader, by changing the position in altiverb, by EQ, whatever. Fact is, that in your master output not all of your VSL tracks will have the same relation in peak to eachother as they had directly after being loaded out of the box into your audio instrument track.

    2. The relation of the level peaks may be different from song to song. I don´t care, cause I don´t ask for every level setting of every type of orchestral setup. I´d just like to have something to start with. So just take a normal orchestral song like the one Angelo took to show the dynamics as our example setup song. Then check the level peaks, so we beginners know, that these peaks in that kind of music would be a good start. Or post any song and tell the peaks of that song.

    3. No matter if a template is useful or not: I don´t want to have the perfect template. I just need something to start with. Once again: I can get two instruments in balance. But I might be doing it wrong cause I chose the wrong start volume levels. I can make a pp VI-16 sound as loud as a full ff chord of the whole rest of the orchestra, if I chose a very high volume level for the VI-16 and very low levels for all other instruments.

    And I hope U agree that I would get a wrong timbre, because of chosing wrong level peak relations.

    So how can one doubt, that this information would help!?!

    4. It´s not right, that no one hast this information. Actually in my actual orchestal song, it would take me about two minutes to get it:

    I´d just have to take a mix, that I like, click thru the single instruments, play the loudest note and write down the volume peak of every instrument at my master output. (Once again: It would not matter to me, how you got to this peak and if instrument x has a lower peak than others because instruments have different reverb settings.It´s just one thing, helping a lot.)

    I hope, this time I explaind better, what I would like to get hints about, since Angelo and I seemed to be talking about different things.

    Thanks for your help anyway.
  • A
    A

    I have no secrets, nor do I think that anyone else here makes a secret out of how he mixes.

    Some of you asked for "relative levels," of which they where not able to define what it is, and at the end I found out, that the only thing they wanted to know are the levels when someone mixes a mock-up with VSL samples.
  • A
    A

    "There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot."

    - Steven Wright (1955-), comedian
  • F
    F
    Even though it might be adressed to me, I like that slogan. Anyway, since I´m not to familiar to all the terms, sorry for the wrong term and the discussion it might have caused. In order not to have more misunderstandings: I´m just interested in the peak value at the master output of the single intstruments. I´d be grateful, if someone could post them.
  • A
    A
    last edited
    last edited

    @ColinThomson said:

    Angelo, what would be a "Standard work every engineer knows" in english be? Do you have recommendations of a book to buy? Thanks.

    Colin Thomson 

    There was a book we called the "Studio Bible," published in the seventies, I lend my copy I bought at the Opamp Technical Bookstore in Hollywood to some r&b producer and never got it back, the titel of the book was:

    "The Recording Studio Handbook"

    by John Woram

    Hardcover, 1976

    Plus

    "Microphone Handbook"

    by John Eargle

    Elar Publishing, Plainview NY

    "The Cameo Dictionary of Creative Audio Terms"

    Published by Framingham. MA

    Paperback, 1979

    ...of course all lend out to some r&b producers and bnever got them back.
  • C
    C
    Felix: Sorry that you don't like hearing the "same arguments" again, but if they're true, then it doesn't matter. I don't disagree with your points except for #1: ALL, not just some of the VSL are out of calibration with each other. ---------------Choosing a high level for the VI-16 in your example #3 is an aesthetic choice, totally valid. If done cleverly, this can expand the sonic palate of the library. ---------------Comparison mixing is the way I work. There is no secret except that I start with levels very low (-20). I use Lots of volume automation. Lots and Lots. Also I use no compression on orchestral samples unless it is mild distortion to excite the sound. ---------------I hope this helps a little. Sorry you aren't getting the answers you want. Clark
  • C
    C

     Clark, interesting that you say you use lots of volume automation. I always thought this would take away from the overall realisticness of the VI samples. They are sampled with crossfades from PP to FF (or so). What is the use of automation? If you bring the volume up on a mp sample to bring it to around F, won't it sound strange to have something playing at that volume in the mix, yet with the sonic quality of what would normally be quieter? What is the use of volume automation (with VSL in mocking up a real orchestra), and how and why do you use it?

    Angelo, thanks for those book recommendations. I will take a look at them.

    Colin Thomson 
  • C
    C
    Colin--Great questions. A few reasons why I use a lot of volume automation (instead of velocity): -----1. Balancing each note of a chord or texture. -----2. Creating a subtle movement within a note or phrase. -----3. I layer solo strings "inside" ensemble patches, bringing them ever so slightly in and out to create timbral shifts to enhance #2. -----4. mp patches at louder volumes can sound "larger" or "thicker" than their f counterparts, thus making them an option when mixing for a particular sound. Careful, though, because this can throw the mix out of whack if it messes up the perspective or context of the mix too much, as you correctly point out. -----5. I tend to avoid crossfade patches unless I'm making a fairly bold move from one layer to another (to avoid the doubling/phasing effect). For more subtle swells or dynamics, I will use #3 combined with a gentle volume curve on the main ensemble patch (or just use the dyn patches if I'm not using perf_leg). -----Hope this helps, Clark
  • C
    C
    I use a lot of automation but it is very subtle. No crazy volume curves or anything. I believe that, tastefully done, subtle automation can really breathe life into longer notes without having the phasing from the x-fade patches, and also helps to eliminate the "organ" effect that plagues sample mock-ups.