194,746 users have contributed to 42,932 threads and 258,003 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 6 new thread(s), 18 new post(s) and 113 new user(s).
... But even there you'll have to mix. Even in recordings of real orchestras recording engineers will have to make subtle adjustements to balance the volume, so you can't expect samples to not have that problem.
The art of mixing is a separate topic entirely. It's a nice topic, but it's not part of this topic.
To achieve what you want you would have to record each instrument in it's respective place on stage, with the mic placed at the conductor position. VSL is recorded with close mics, in their silent stage. It's a different concept. Each has it's pros and cons (a con of recording in place would be that it's difficult to use such instruments in a solo piece. That's why Orchestral Tools recorded soloists (with a different concept!) on top of their orchestral woodwinds. A con of recording close up is that you have to balance the volume between the instruments). Natural Volume is a good starting point that helps bridge the gap between the two concepts. But still, it's not the same as recording in place and never will be. In short, VSL's approach is more flexible, but needs more work (balancing the volume, placing the sound in a room, applying reverb etc.). If you don't want to do that work, you should have bought a library with a different concept.
To achieve what you want you would have to record each instrument in it's respective place on stage, with the mic placed at the conductor position.
That's not true. What I want can be achieved with software and samples recorded close on a silent stage. You may not understand how software could do such a thing, but I do understand. It's simply a matter of whether VSL wants to offer this feature to their customers. I don't see why you're insisting otherwise.
... the dynamic ranges of VI are not really accurate. For example the dynamic range of a Flute is far less than say a Trumpet, but in the VI player the difference is less severe than it should be.
When I first read this, it made sense to me, but now I don't get it. What's unnatural about this example (warning: loud trumpet)?
[url]https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ZYXb_HdIQhS3FGZkxPUnpOVTA/view?usp=sharing[/url]
The flute and trumpet are at the exact same location on stage.
On a flute, for example, the higher register can go much louder than the lowest register.... Natural Volume feature in MIR... won't account for the cases where you play the lowest note on the flute, and assign a cc 1 value of 127. It will be too loud compared to the rest of the instruments (simply because the low notes of the flute in VSL have the same dynamic range as the high notes, which in reality, they haven't).
This is natural or unnatural?
[url]https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ZYXb_HdIQhYXc2ZGVSUlRBVDA/view?usp=sharing[/url]
DG and Dominique,
You have me so confused now. You're saying the current Natural Volume in MIR is a good start but breaks down in some cases. Can you give me a specific example of a case where it's imperfect? Please tell me which instruments to play simultaneously, at which specific pitches and velocities, so that I get unnatural results?
Ok, I came up with something here:
It's a snippet from a classical piece, playing twice. One is a recording, one is a mockup I made. Can you tell which is which? Which snippet do you like better, and why? Is there something that strikes you as unnatural in one or both of the snippets?
Don't worry, these are no catch questions and there are no wrong answers. I'm just really interested how this is perceived. And I hope it can help us discussing a thing or two about natural volume and balancing.
Not sure what this is really about. Hair-splitting and arguing semantics?
Natural volume is a nice feature that gives you a general guideline. It's a time saver. It's there to get you in the right ballpark quickly. But it can't eliminate the necessary task of arranging and mixing music - just like there can never be a go-to channel strip plugin preset that says "apply great professional mix to the track"; and actually does what it promises.
The CC7 of all my VI Pro instances are set to 127 by default. Natural volume is on and I do what I feel that needs to be done with expression and vel-xfade. Everything eventually ends up being rendered to audio before mixing anyway, the good old-fashioned way. Every single project is completely individual in terms of fader volumes, groupings, EQ, processing etc. Sometimes, the results are OK, sometimes not so much, but it's not, and cannot be, the job of a plugin or software feature to make sure that my music sounds acceptable through automation and preset values. Keeping trying, making crappy mixes, improving and continuing to learn - it's all one can do.
No amount of sophisticated software, compulsory and scientifically sound numerical values and creatively named features can relieve you of the necessity of making senseful musical decisions, riding your faders and using your ears. Using one's ears - I realize it's a scary thought, especially in the world of digital DAW music production and the phenomena of "visual" and "numerical" mixing it eintails. But it's just the way it is. Mixing music isn't color by numbers.
I'm just really interested how this is perceived. And I hope it can help us discussing a thing or two about natural volume and balancing.
I'm stuck on statements made by you and DG, which I quoted in my two most recent posts. Without clarification, I don't understand why you and DG believe VSL's Natural Volume is imperfect.
We're talking about things unrelated to human perception, things which would still exist even if robots or a plague killed all the humans. That, at least, is how I meant the topic when I personally created it. There are so many other threads for people to talk about art and human-perception. This is probably the least appropriate thread for that. Hijacking the thread to muse about art is disrespectful.... This thread is about objective levels and has absolutely nothing to do with how those levels are percevied by any human's ear. Pretend an asteroid killed all the humans, for this thread. We're just talking about sound waves in a hypothetical world with no humans.
As people continue to misunderstand this topic, I'll continue to clarify that it's unrelated to human perception. It's just about numbers in DAW's and pressure-waves moving through air, not about humans. If I could make that clear using fewer words, I would.
I see this this forum is short on people who comprehend that the natural world doesn't revolve around them (cf. the Catholic Church's attack on Galileo when he heretically suggested the Universe doesn't revolve around the earth), so I'll just try to step back and observe the artists express their grandiose, egocentric views about audio engineering.
No one's suggested it can. On the contrary, post after post after painful post, I point out that arrangement and mixing are totally irrelevant to this specialized topic.
I realize that you took the effort to point that out, but I'd argue that the sentiment is mistaken. Why would you ever be concerned about relations of volume if not in the context of musical arrangement, balance of orchestration and the mix. I mean you can do it if it brings you joy or whatever, but in the context of music making, it's idle.
Why would you ever be concerned about relations of volume if not in the context of musical arrangement, balance of orchestration and the mix.... I mean you can do it if it brings you joy or whatever
I hadn't even known I needed your permission.
I hadn't even known I needed your permission.
Yeah, I was keeping that a secret too ... 😛
As people continue to misunderstand this topic, I'll continue to clarify that it's unrelated to human perception. It's just about numbers in DAW's and pressure-waves moving through air, not about humans. If I could make that clear using fewer words, I would.
Once you introduce art, taste, and creativity into a discussion, the discussion is bound to degenerate into nonsense.... But science -- e.g., audio engineering and computer science -- is different, and it has rules, and when I have a question about science and someone tries to change the subject to art, I will always attempt to redirect the discussion back to the topic: science. Thanks for understanding.
Thanks for understanding, everyone. If you cannot imagine Newtonian Mechanics functioning without humans to perceive it and artists to adjust it, you are incompetent for this topic. If you feel Newton was all about "hair-splitting and arguing semantics", please allow me to show you to the appropriate thread for you:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ESLC6i5.png[/img]
What will be the next self-absorbed, vapid lout's excuse for prattling about his art in this thread.
If you set your volume faders all to the the same level, turn on Natural Volume, and use only velocity (and instrument-positioning in the MIR room) to control loudness, your will get combinations of timbres limited to the combinations which are possible in the real world.
No, that is not correct, because it ignores the differing dynamic range of instruments. There is probably one dynamic at which this is true, but as I have no idea as to how the Natural Volumes were calculated, I have no idea which dynamic it would be.
I'm not understanding your point. Not disagreeing with you, but I don't understand what you mean....
... the dynamic ranges of VI are not really accurate. For example the dynamic range of a Flute is far less than say a Trumpet, but in the VI player the difference is less severe than it should be. Maybe this is something that the VSL guys could comment on and possibly give figures as to how the normalisation (for want of a better word) has been achieved....
If my assertion in the inner quote is incorrect, there should be an example of specific settings where Natural Volume results in unnatural timbral combinations. If no such example surfaces, I'm going to chalk this up as superstition or unsubstantiated rumor.
BachRules,
let me put it this way: for obvious reasons, I find your use of terms like "egomaniac", "babbling", "self-absorbed" and "vapid" quite amusing. I'm sure you'll figure it out. Look at it as a chance for personal growth. It's not science, after all, isn't it?
BachRules,let me put it this way: for obvious reasons, I find your use of terms like "egomaniac", "babbling", "self-absorbed" and "vapid" quite amusing. I'm sure you'll figure it out. Look at it as a chance for personal growth. It's not science, after all, isn't it?
That's deep, man, because I'm the one prattling about his art in a thread where it's irrelevant. Except it was you not I who really did that.
So you bought a DAW and learned how to move the faders, and from there BAM you inferred the entire natural world depends on your operation of the faders, and anything less is "hair-splitting and semantics".
You saw the earlier talk about worlds where there are no humans to perceive air-pressure waves, and that hypothesis was too much for your ego to bear, so you pretended it never happened and you charged in slack-jawed insisting how important you are to the functioning of audio.
And when someone asks about the operation of MIR's Natural Volume feature, there you are like a drooling Pavlovian dog preaching, "Hey it's not some magic do-your-mix-for-you button," and you preach this despite no one ever having suggested it was.
You're so distracted by your own mixing practices, you can't comprehend that there's such an objective phenomenon as Natural Volume that's independent of you and your mixing. And you'll remain ignorant because you'd rather attack than take the time to figure out wtf the words "Natural Volume" really mean (not what you assumed).
No one asked you about magic do-your-mix-for-you buttons. That's just some music-forum cliche you memorized before this thread started, and you'd see it's irrelevant if you read the thread.
In summary, you move your DAW faders until you like how it sounds, and you feel compelled to announce that mundanity to the world, even when you're disrespectfully hijacking unrelated discussions.
