@mike harper said:

[:O] ok some of this will be very clear when i get the cube shortly.
but what if i was to play the very last chord of beethovens 5th last
movement. this is longer then 3 sec. at ff, ( don't have the score in front of me) i am assuming you could use a mf-ff or ff- mf-ff
or something similar- [[:|]] the original post made this sound imposible

thanks

Just in order to avoid missinformation about the classical repertoire: The Final C minor chord of Beethoven symphonie nr. 5 is not longer as 3 seconds.....The longest ¨last chord" Version of Beethoven 5th I do have on recording, is Berlin Philharmonic, conducted by Loorin Maazel = exactly 3 seconds. But apart of this I agree with you. A good example would be Brahms 2th =ca. 6 seconds D major - brass tutti FF, let's try it........

Iwan

Herb,

Thank you for responding. I'm glad to hear there are plans to loop the library. I am bemused by the conversation you had with the players, though. To say that ff in the lower tuba register is not used in "normal" literature is curious, to say the least. A quick perusal of the scores of Prokofiev and Stravinsky and some little known Austrian named Mahler show that to be far from the case, unless, of course, the player considers anything written in the 20th century to be modern and not normal.

As to LA players having bigger lungs, well, I guess that's true, but it's also true of Chicago and London and Sydney, etc. As Iwan points out, players all over the world can sustain loud notes. I mean no disrespect to the players used in the sampling sessions, but it seems as if they weren't quite up to the task. Looping will help with this, but when the sustained sample is only 1-3 seconds long and the first second or so of the note is still settling, there's not much left to loop.

I think I understand what you're saying about the end of sustained notes coming down in volume somewhat. I often write a small dim. in the score at the end of held notes to avoid an abrupt cutoff, but players will generally do this anyway, unless specifically instructed not to. Yes, this can be approximated by adding a dim. patch to the end of a sustained patch, but that will require at least another MIDI channel in the sequencer and another slot in Gigastudio, to say nothing of the time to make those two patches crossfade seamlessly and sound like one long note. This I do not have time for, and whatever happened to the concept of this library making sequencing easier and giving composers/orchestrators more time to create and not tweak?

I've had my questions answered, so I won't continue this thread any longer. I'll be sure to ask more questions before I make another expensive purchase like this, and would encourage others to do the same.

Best of luck.

it may also be time constraints not just the players.

Longer notes at ff/fff are probably harder to keep consistant so multiple takes are needed.


multipe takes of jsut the ff/fff versions of 2 million samples or whatever.....

hmm see you in 2010

@Another User said:

At the moment we do some looping jobs.
All the brass ensemble sustains, strings sustains/tremolos.

Hi Herb,
Are you going to loop the woodwinds as well?

We are discussing it. [[;)]]

I had a very interesting conversation last year with Peter Siedlaczek about simple physical limits in sample technolgie. We talked about noise floor, that a harp is the most difficult instrument to sample properly, and so on.

About looping Peter said, that he never was satisfied in looping solo wind instruments. Conclusio is, that a looped solo instrument will be always a compromise, because you will mention it.

In earlier days, producers have to use very short samples with very short loop points, here you don't have timbre changes because the sample was to short for a change. The loops worked well, but the instrument sounded inanimate and steril.

With this solution I couldn't live. If you don't have problems with timbre-jumps, we could offer solo wind loops.

It wouldn't work for exponated solos, but could work for bigger orchestrations.

best wishes
Herb

[:D] Thanks Herb, I think this would be a good idea, certainly for simplifying midi-mock ups of orchestral scores, specifically for tied notes.

I note in the scores like Bruckner's 7th, the last eleven bars of all four woodwind parts at the finale of the 1st movement are tied for the same note at fff. Also at the end of the adagio 2nd movement, the last 9 bars for the trombones are tied - admittedly at pp dim ppp, but it's a long time at the slow tempo. I'm not sure how the players accomplish this.

Craig

@herb said:

But who knows, maybe Hollywood brass players...have simply larger lungs than Europeans.

Lungs normal. Egos giant.

As someone which did teach professional wind players in 4 different continents, I can assure you that there are players who can hold long notes for a loooong time all over the whole world. And there are also some which can not............

Iwan

Teasing.

I'm IN Hollywood! [H]

Herb said:

@Another User said:

If you don't have problems with timbre-jumps, we could offer solo wind loops.

Can't you use the sample crossfade to smooth over timbre jumps? I find that in EXS24, an Auto Crossfade value of over 100ms with EqPower checked REALLY helps smooth over loop changes.

Just a thought........

Regards - Colin

I bought VSL because it sounds real. If you are waiting around for looped samples to arrive, then you are probably writing music that is unplayable by real musicians and therefore will sound fake regardless of how good your samples are. Bravo, Herb, for taking the time to research playability before programming VSL. Sure you can find trombonists who can sustain a ff for longer than 3 seconds but not in every city that you want your music heard. And most of the time at an intonation price. So don't write it that way. (And Herb, please don't loop the woodwinds!!!)

Anyone using the VSL will benefit greatly from spending time studying orchestration or listening to orchestral music. And when you see a 9-bar held brass note in a Bruckner score, consider that there are 4 bones holding the chord and each one of them is expected to "stagger breathing," as is often written on scores. This can be done subtly and without unbalancing the chord or even hearing a reattack of the note.

That said, try doing this (staggered breathing, reattacking, transferring the note) in your writing/mixing to get around the 3-second length. It's what real musicians would do...

BLAKE

Herb,

Blake is spot on - its up to the composer to find the work-around and there are so many possibilities.

Perhaps it is best to leave - say we say tonal and lenght adjustments to the user. Certainly the editing function of the ESX will allow you to do so many things [Giga is probably the same] Additionally there are other tools such as ReCycle that a user can easily use to extend/change/whatever.

Like many people these days my main instrument is the Sampler - and just like any other instrument it takes time to learn and master - and in doing so you find that there are many possibilities for expression and intonation. [And just like any other instruments - the composer should strive to understand what it is capable of]

And tongue in cheek -- perhaps our friend who started this thread should go and get himself a Melotron [:D]

--- on the subject of non standard Orchestral instruments - would love to see samples for of the Melophonium and Ondes-Martenot if you ever come across them.

tattie

@tattie said:

[...]
--- on the subject of non standard Orchestral instruments - would love to see samples for of the Melophonium and Ondes-Martenot if you ever come across them.

tattie

... I hear you! ;-]


/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Blake wrote:

If you are waiting around for looped samples to arrive, then you are probably writing music that is unplayable by real musicians and therefore will sound fake regardless of how good your samples are.

Well, why only imitate reality?
Let's also transcend and surpass it!

If you are a "purist" and only use a sampler to play what could be played by live musicians, that's fine. I believe we live in an amazing time where music can also be played by instruments that do not exist in the physical universe.

So, let's have loops, filters, reverse the samples, whatever allows the composer (and the listener) freedom.

Regards - Colin

While I believe in the world of workarounds, I *DO NOT* agree in the idea that one is writing music that is unplayable if you are relying on loops.

Loops are just a convenience. One doesn't have to stagger notes as they do in real sections if you have loops. Doesn't mean I dont KNOW that the notes ahve to be staggered. Also what about unison notes in an ensemble?

Looping is just a a standard in libraries, and most custromers are used to this fact.

now does NOT having loops make the library unusable. NO!. Thats one of the most ignorant comments I've heard. It just makes it less convenient to write/play certain phrases.

You can retrigger notes fairly easily with VSL. It sounds pretty good with most ensembles too.

tattie & Blake:

I strongly disagree.

We midi studio composers have our midi orchestra to work with. A library is supposed to help us not hinder us. For many years we have gotten used to the idea of having samples LOOPED. Advances in technology should NOT hinder us or a library in its usability. Advances should take us forward, not back.

Its been said "you don't need loops in Gigastudio". That doesn't mean we SHOULD NOT use loops where we need it. Like King was saying: in the real orchestra of course the ensemble staggers the breathing. THAT is what should be sampled!!!

And failing that, it should be looped, becuuse if a LONG staggered sustain was NOT sampled, then we DON'T have the real thing anyway!!

Change our music to accomodate the library?? Well, a lot of us composers have had to do that in the past o certain degrees. But VSL is SO CLOSE to NOT HAVING to change our music to accomodate our usually limited libraries. We should be able to write how we would for a real orchestra or soloist. Believe me: the legato clarinet can NOT currently do what ANY clarinet player can: play 2 notes and have the second one sound longer than about 3 seconds!!

King is working on example art files etc (multiport solutions), and Herb has responded to requests for loops, which is wonderful!!!

But no, we do NOT want to change our music to accomodate a lack of longer sustains. I am not talking about solo tuba with 10 seconds of long note legato without a breath for 2 minutes. I am talking about very simple, slow melodies and slow brass lines, and woodwinds (solo and ensemble) that VSL cannot currently perform without a multiport or multi channel crossfade solution.

These issues are raised in the interest of wanting VSL to reach the perfection it almost gets to. It's almost there, and we want to see it go all the way.

Try playing a slow melody with the clarinet and you will soon see what I mean. Its a beautiful sound and the legato is a BREAKTHROUGH in sampling realism. The short legato notes (much shorter than what a real player is capable of) brings the whole thing down when it was sooo close.

Keep up the great work Herb, and thanks for responding to the tasks of accomodating our sincere wishes.

Robert,

Thank you for writing this in such a clear way! Personally I do not like loops so much, so I would like some of the samples to be longer. And this is valid in a big part of the library. But the statement to not want any looped version seems kind of egoistic. Their are people writing music, making a living with it who just need looped versions and IMHO they are entitled to get them. As an example I would mention Garritan Strings, which did provide all the looped versions which are useful to many and not disturb anybody. As long as there are unlooped versions of all the patches, I can not see any kind of problems for anybody, but maybe did I miss something?

Iwan

I have no difficulty with LOOPS per say - (heaven knows I have used enough of them in the past) – My first hardware sampler had a massive 32K of RAM and Root Notes were scanned across several octaves.

My point is that perhaps the user should loop those samples that they need rather than rely on a library to provide them.

In practical terms where would it stop - in reality Herb and the Team would have to loop just about everything - that is a huge overhead.

Modern tools make looping very easy and by researching and learning to do this yourself you will probably discover more and more about what can be done. And we have quite a few attack free samples in the current library to play with.

To get on a soapbox for a moment or two – Composing /Arranging/Playing using samples is a wholly different ball game. I suspect that many of us cut our teeth using Synthesizers - where infinite timbres are possible; from out of compass short duration notes to those long sweeping faux string pads etc. All of this has extended (enriched) the vocabulary – In a one sense using samples brings us back down to earth - but we can apply that extended vocabulary to our samples to push the sonic boundaries and adapt our techniques.

@Iwan Roth said:

but maybe did I miss something?

Yes. In our industry, you missed deadlines and producers! It may not be the purist thing, but in our industry, loops are required of every library. If it's missing from the library, the library starts developing a reputation for being hard to use.

In an ideal world. we should learn how to loop. But LA professionals don't live in an ideal world. It's pressure, pressure, pressure. When you find you have to loop something, it adds to the pressure, because instead of scoring, you're screwing around with GigaStudio trying to get the instrument to loop right.

After a while, it's just faster to go, "next!" and grab a program from another library that does what you need.

To some degree, I hope this clarifies the writing experience of one group of VSL customers and their needs.

PA

This is an exerpt of my last Post:

But the statement to not want any looped version seems kind of egoistic. Their are people writing music, making a living with it who just need looped versions and IMHO they are entitled to get them.

Peter,

Maybe I do miss something again [[;)]] , but in this case I do actually think that it is you who missed to read my post carefully, because I did write more or less exactly what you also do write.....But maybe you only confuse me with somebody else, because I never did write anywhere that a library should not have any loops for those who need them, which I fully do understand. Just that I personally do not like them very much.

Iwan

My apologies.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in the discussion of non-looped samples is an interesting problem I've faced.

When I write something and hand it off to an orchestrator, it's tedious to have to explain to that orchestrator that he's going to see a lot of repeated notes that I don't want to be repeated.

It then becomes a matter of having to go through each cue and each track in that cue, to remember if I had any "retriggered" samples for the purposes of playing a MIDI mockup for the director/producer/etc.

Inevitably, my scores come back to me from the orchestrator with repeated notes that I have to tie together or get rid of myself. And I really don't want to have to go through my orchestrator's work, line by line, to see if he's missed anything (this just happened on a major motion picture. It wasted a LOT of my time). It's not only a huge time-waster - it also gives the orchestrator (who's generally a friend) the impression that "Your work isn't trustworthy enough to send on to the copyist without having it checked first."

So, while I know Herb and Co. have their hands constantly full with updates, etc., I think maybe this problem should be given just a bit more attention.