196,157 users have contributed to 43,014 threads and 258,394 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 6 new post(s) and 167 new user(s).
Hi again,
Oh well, I’m alway wrong! [:'(] And I’m talking to a self proclaimed "expert orchestrator", who hasn’t seen how other stuff works. Can’t go very far with this discussion. Spiccato always softer than a Detaché? So FF spicc isn’t possible. A PP détaché isn’t possible?
@jammusique said:
Hi again,
Oh well, I’m alway wrong! [:'(] And I’m talking to a self proclaimed "expert orchestrator", who hasn’t seen how other stuff works. Can’t go very far with this discussion. Spiccato always softer than a Detaché? So FF spicc isn’t possible. A PP détaché isn’t possible?
No, I didn't say that you were always wrong. However, let me answer your points that you raise:
All I'm saying is that for me (and I can only speak for myself) there are things that I would like from VIP, but I haven't seen anything elsewhere that interests me, other than the things I've already mentioned.
DG
You both crack me up! Let's all just take a big deep breath! :) - but anyway...
"Of course you have to fine tune. You are creating a performance"
This is true, whether sampling or not fine tuning is done... Forget all the specific suggestions on this thread for a second... what we are really saying is that the less fine tuning we have to do with a sampled orchestra, the more like a real orchestra it would be (workflow-wise)... which is what we want - as this means less work programming and more writing music. This is not a new request; I would even say that it should be as much of a focus as 'realism' is for the sounds. It wouldn't matter how good the sample library is, if it takes 1 year to program a piece, it wouldn't be worth it. VSL doesn't take nearly that long obviously, but it takes a much longer amount of time than what I think users want.
One other point on this that is very important. I don't think that it should all be done for me and be automatic... I simply feel it should be less work, like a real orchestra. I put PP on a page and people know what it means... I conducted a group that wasn't getting what I wanted... I simply said to the low brass, "make it sound like an elephant, stomping his way around" and they played it perfectly. This is a simple instruction. Obviously it wouldn't work for a sample library, but if there were simpler ways (presets, faders, ???) of changing the sound with less work in the fine tuning process... I think this is what we want. I think if VSL misses this concept, other companies will certainly do it eventually and I wouldn't want to see that happen. I love VSL, I expect the best from VSL, and I think that this is a main problem to approach in getting there...
"I would agree that the Brass staccatos in VSL take a lot more work to make sound good than they should, and this is probably one area where more work could be done automatically (and I have a good idea how to fix this), but I haven't heard anything better else where yet"
I can see times where that would actually be pretty useful... but in general I wouldn't want it. The only reason I can even think it could be useful is to approach the less work problem, but I don't think it's the cause... I think it would be better just to have a more intuitive and organic approach to performance, like a performance 'humanize' function. It can be turned on and off AND you can control how much affect it has.
Humanize Performance Tool - If you were to draw a melody in Cubase without using any midi cc's it would be very dead expressively, obviously. - There are times to be very unexpressive on purpose as well... but if there was a humanizer for this and I turned the 'expressive' fader up, I should be able to write a melody and have it sound somewhat decent from the start. - I realize this may seem unrealistic and that I am not wording this very well, but consider a few points...
1) Not avoiding programming, but less time doing it means more time writing and is more productive.
2) It might not seem very easy to design VIP to do this, but if it was the benefits would be monumental. People often say that EW is better out of the box, and VSL is far better but with more work to get it that way. I realize it's usually directed at the dry/wet debate... but if VSL sounded good out of the box midi programming-wise it would be an amazing thing and a great time saver. I think the humanize idea would balance the ability to adjust it and the ability to control how the tool would function.
3) Anything that would provide more accurate playback in a way that saves more time is definately a good thing. If VSL was 'human' enough that I wouldn't even need to draw in crossfader patterns in cubase, then I wouldn't be using cubase... I'd be using Sibelius.
To me the ultimate goal of a sample library would make it work in a way that sounded real and that I only had to use a simple notation tool like Sibelius to get that real sound out of. To me the humanize mentality is the way there.
Maybe this seems odd to someone used to the sample world, but how many people wanted to learn midi, cubase, etc, when they started... I wanted to compose. Even though VSL is greatest library to me, I still end up doing more work to get things to sound like a real orchestra than I'd prefer and I do more work to get the right performance out of VSL than it would take for a real orchestra... thus why I think these feature concepts are useful.
-Sean (and sorry, I know... I'm a long winded guy)
@DG said:
there are things that I would like from VIP, but I haven't seen anything elsewhere that interests me
Agreed. jammusique might have some valid points, I don't know cause I'm a VSL exclusive... I've used play once on a friends computer and I hated it. Maybe other people have more luck... but from what I've seen from other software, nothing comes even close to VIP in my opinion... I'm only recomending some way of saving time getting the 'right sound'.
-Sean
What do your creditials have to do with anything, we’re talking about wanted new features. If none of these are things that you’d like to see in VIP then why are you posting here? If you had seen the Hollywood string intro, Cinebrass video, and Kirk Hunter video, maybe you could respond directly to me, but you if you haven’t why post?
Just a little clarification:
Detaché is on the string, spiccato is off the string. Either can be very loud, or rather soft. Actually you can play detaché in PPP (maybe sulla punta) on the string, changing bow at each note (there it’s all wrist action, no or little arm movement). Spiccato (the attack coming from off the string) is impossible to play very soft if the notes are fast. If very slow, then just a little tap is possible, but still probably loader than anything on the string.
In the real world a passage making use of lots of articulation in played, and the composer writes MP (mezzo piano) and the player makes all his gestures fall under that dynamic. It’s up to the player to learn how to come out of an on the string passage, jump quickly from the 3rd to first string, and play off-the-bow attacks softly (for example) at a quick speed. Well I’d like my sampler to be able to do the same. And it envolves more than just firing off samples, that was possible 20 years ago.
SFZ is by definition a little louder ("forced"), so for me, I’d like to have those a tad loader than the other articulations at the same relative fader level.
FYI, one of the new libraries I mentioned has a feature where the level is controlled by the mod wheel, and the attacks by velocity (which morphs in a tad of an attack sample probably). Not bad !
FYI, one of the new libraries I mentioned has a feature where the level is controlled by the mod wheel, and the attacks by velocity (which morphs in a tad of an attack sample probably). Not bad !
Yes, I do this in VIP all the time.
Anyway we're obviously not going to agree so I won't waste any more of your time by posting in this thread.
DG
I was never talking about, the sound (synthy), lack of articulations, ambience, tuning, etc of the other libraries. I was talking about their sampler features (this is a new feature sampler thread). And no, no need for multiplet tracks in HS.
Your definition of what détaché is, and what spiccato is, are samples? And you think that one is by definition louder than the other in the real world?
And you’re an "expert orchestrator"? [:S]
Can I load all samples of, say, EW Stormdrum II into one instance of Play and manipulate it via a matrix or rather set of matrices of my choosing, as with VI/VIP? If not, which seems to be my early experience, then Play blows. I'm not running 17 instances of the same sampler to make one small collection play, regardless of what else it may offer. If I had to load more than one instance of my Vi section, or Vi2 section, I'd feel the same way.
I love VI/VIP. Maybe the lack of human you speak of is more about being a human and writing, rather than relying on software to make it human. I only want playability. I'd never ask for more. You find it a nuisance to adjust between two notes? Have you ever played an instrument? That is often a huge journey, to make it repeatable, especially live. I don't want 128 tracks for 32 instruments. The rest is up to me. If you need to do it in software in the first place, you can't preach, that's how I see it. The rest, write it and let someone else deal with it, if someone ever buys it, if that's your goal. I'd rather write music, slowly, till it's me and I like it, without the constraints of someone's programming. If that wasn't true, I'd have bought EW for orchestral things, much cheaper if you don't mind sounding like Joe Blow, and then I'd be complaining about how crappy Play is; maybe it's good, but it's certainly not intuitive, which VSL software is. Who needs behind the scenes when everything is in front of you?
Who needs behind the scenes when everything is in front of you?
You're right... lets get rid of the current humanize feature also... I mean, technically it's already "in front of you" isn't it? Use a pitch wheel or go into cubase and draw every last little pitch imprefection on every track using pitch bend because that would just save loads of time. My point is valid. My suggestions are valid. You may disagree with them, and you might not find them neccesary... but that doens't negate in any way that there are those who would benefit from them. This thread was to suggest a feature. If you have a better idea, I'd be happy to listen, but just because you don't like someone elses, which certainly wouldn't affect your current paradigm or workflow... I see nothing constructive in what you said. Perhaps I'm wrong, please enlighten me. [:D]
-Sean
No, you're right, I said nothing constructive. I shouldn't have posted. I occasionally get caught up in the negativity, and open my mouth when I shouldn't. I've read so many posts lately that are anti-everything, pro-everything, and I don't just mean here.
I'm willing to spend as long as it takes to get a note to sound how I want, but I realize that's just my way of trying to do things. Some people don't have that luxury. And I just spent the farm to try and do just that, so I'm very excited, and nervous, and frankly a bit touchy LOL. Will feel much better when I figure all this gear out:)
And my comment about people playing real instruments was obviously off. Many of you are certainly better performers than I'll ever be, and the fact that I only play guitar with any kind of competency, well...
But that sort of makes me realize why I said some of these things in the first place. I very often, just jamming for example, will play my guitar into an audio track (the real guitar) and double it (via my GI-20 midi thingie) with a sample. They are NEVER even close, the sample is dead compared to the live instrument. But do I want a few people who think 'this is how to fix it' solving all of my transitions for me? No, I can't imagine that.
I think you have valid points especially for someone who is making a living at it, is time-bound etc., but for the most part I can't - personally- see myself ever wanting things to get too, too automatic.
Case in point: VST Expression, after trying to wrap my head around it for a couple of weeks, loading VSL's templates etc., and finally seeing how it works, I came to the conclusion that: why bother? I had no problem with VI (before I bought Pro) using 4-5 lanes in Cubase because it was touchable: go into VI, choose your controller, and spend every second in a song paying attention to the details. I'm not saying VST Expression isn't touchable, but unless you want to spend WAAAY too much time writing code, lanes are easier, and they are visual/tactile, giving me much more control. But ask me how I feel if I ever start writing in the Scoring pane, I'll probably deny all this lol!
Less auto-button pushing, more listening, more decision making. Slower? A lot. But I don't ever think I'll be trying to get my music into movies...
Sorry again, I came on half-caulked last night. My mistake.
And FWIW I love the humanize feature in VIP. It allows my samples to play as out of tune as I do in real life:)
Shawn
Oh I was a smart-alec in my reply so it's all good.
I guess I need to re-word one point. I definately don't want automatic performance in one way and I do in another. The humanize timing idea I mentioned would certainly be automatic. Although I think it's not absolutely essential, just like the current humanize, but that it certain would help in realism without manually adjusting all the start times of each pitch...
The thing I don't want automatic is fine-tuning, which I think people misunderstood. I want a very specific sound out of "my orchestra" so I fine tune and I will also take as long as it needs. Any artificial 'clues' revealing the use of samples, I try to get rid of as much as I can... All I meant was that DURING the fine tuning process I would like features that will save as much time and work as possible in getting to that fine-tuned 'right sound'. I doubt anyone would disagree with that, I simply didn't word it well. How to save the amount of fine-tuning time it takes... I am not sure. I gave the crossfade idea, but ultimately just for the goal I just mentioned. I really want fine-tuning time savers more than anything but without diminishing the level of control I have over VSL.
-Sean
Well I’m not sure this is relative to VIP or relative to each individual library, and how the individual samples are edited.
I loaded up some Appassionata violins and alternated between different patches all playing the note E4, and noted the levels in db(RMS and Peak in a Logic Multimeter). 1st at Velocity X-fade 20, then at 110. Patches used are
1 Sus Vib Strong
2 Perf Legato 4 velocities
3 Stacc
4 détaché
5 Pizz.
6 Trem
Vel X-fade 20
1 (sus) -22db
2 (leg) -17db
3 (stacc) -17b
4 -19
5 -25
6 -20
Vel X-fade 110
1 -25db
2 -26
3 -15
4 -24
5 -28
At Vel X-fade 110, when I go from 2 short notes (stacc then detache) the second is 9 db louder. I really can’t believe my ears. This really isn’t acceptable (or am I missing something?). That’s why I’m having to insert automation data note by note. And going from Sus to Legato at low level (Vel X-fade 20) there’s a huge jump, while at Vel
X-fade 110 it was smooth. Why haven’t all patches at corresponding velocity layers been brought to the same levels?
Let’s forget the pizz and Sfz, but shouldn’t sus, legato, stacc, detache, trem, trill, have very close levels, allowing us to just draw in a bit of phrasing with the Exp-VelXfad faders, and the rest just sounding musically correct?
Can someone from VSL please chime in and maybe tell me where I’m going wrong, or maybe what could be done? [B]
I did some tests yesterday with the Fl. 1. In the mixer I was lowering the sus by 3 db. In some circumstances that can help, but didn’t find any consistent settings that would lessen the need to automate. And since each patch contains 2-4 samples (that we have no access to), there’s not much we can do.
I know that there a tens of thousands of samples that would need to be reedited, but there are programs that should be able to automatically do that.
I would say that in the context of an entire mix, some of these jump do get masked, but when exposed, even through a great reverb, the differences stand out.
I’d be interested to hear how others are getting around this?
Well, I’ve taken the time to do some more testing. Perturbed in thinking of all the time past and future lost just correcting levels with automation.
I looked at the Trumpet in C short articulations, and the variances seems normal (+/- 3db) on several notes that I looked at.
But a extremely bad case is in the Ob II. I tested the note E5 at velocity of 32.
Stacc -24db, Port short -18db, Port med -11db, Port long vib -19db ..... so a 13 db difference in levels. So if you use all those in a phrase, you’ll probably be correcting at least half of them. The jump from -24db to -11db is incredible.
And then surprise, still E5 but up to velocity 110, Stacc -15db, Port short -19, Port short -17db, Port med -14..... so the differences between the articulations are almost inverted with here the stacc being the loudest.
It’s clear that there hasn’t been enough editing done on these samples.
I think this measures are good examples how certain instruments work in real world.
In the higher register of an oboe, very short notes like staccato do have a higher volume range, because the tonal developement with staccatos are not as big compared to longer notes performing in pianissimo. Longer notes develop more tone therefor the volume is usually higher. Further performing vibrato needs more tonal stability, therefor medium long note with vibrato will be always much louder than a staccato in pp.
In ff usually a staccato note will be always louder than a sustained, the whole possible impact is produced in short amount of time. Longer notes, if they are not performed marcatissimo develop the maximum within the note. Further the tone quality is more demanding on a long note compared to a staccato, the musician has to take care that the tone "works".
Generally we take a lot of care in editing our samples, of course we can do mistakes - no question about that.
What we have is a very good reference in our dynamic samples and the dynamic repetition patches for all the mapping values.
If you need more control about dynamic ranges I strongly recommend VI PRO. Beside setting the individual volume of a certain patch in your template, you can adjust also the dynamic range of each patch individually. And at least you can setup volumegraphs on your keyboard to adjust volume for dedicated play ranges, even on single notes within a patch.
best
Herb
@herb said:
very short notes like staccato do have a higher volume range
That's something that I completely over looked. Don't get me wrong, I still stand by my suggestion to find ways to lessen the time it takes to fune-tune to the sound you want... but the inconsistancy between volumes makes a lot of sense now.
With that, I would prefer to keep the range at the maximum as I think restricting the range of an instrument would then produce unnatural results. I suppose something like that has to be handled on a note by note basis, unless you want to restric the ranges or volumes in your template... which as I said might produce an instrument capable of less realistic dynamic flexibility.
Herb (if you're still reading) or anyone else... I have an ultimatum-like question. I'd either want to strongly suggest ways of reducing the time it takes to fine-tune cross fading to get that perfect sound... (and I'm curious what attempts or concepts could possibly be implemented, if any, to help this) OR I would like some feedback on how to get those results quickly.
---------
This is the only example I have already online but here goes... (Just keep in mind, I know a lot more about mastering, reverb, and mix since I made this... and it was in a massive hurry for a class I had last semester so there are plenty of problems with it.)
http://soundcloud.com/iscorefilm/graduation-theme
Below I posted a couple examples of the crossfading used. The french horn example includes more variation with the expression tool instead of the crossfade tool, but the point is that nothing sounded right, like what I imagine a horn player doing, until I drew it like this... and I didn't simply draw it then done, it took listening, drawing, listening, adjusting, a few times to get it the way that sounded right. - The Cello example is simply to show the kind of drawing it takes to get some good phrasing.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have to fine-tune... but I don't think anyone would disagree that with standard notation there isn't nearly as much detail given to the performer. Cubase is a performance tool, unlike sibelius, so I get that we need to fine-tune... but I need an easier way... and I can't use a simple mod wheel for it, I feel like 'by hand' is too sloppy when in most instances to get a sound that even sounds remotely real I have to do much 'finer' work than what doing by hand would produce.
Any advice on how time can be saved here? Or any features possibilities that could lessen the time it takes to fine-tune? This is the whole reason I started the thread.
Thanks,
-Sean
At 00:21 there is a french horn line
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/3040/crossfade02.jpg
At 01:44 there is a cello line
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/3848/crossfade01.jpg