Interesting data Plougot. Thanks for taking the time to gather that together. But isn't it exactly what VSL's 'natural volume' does, i.e. give you starting values for the relative volume of the orchestras instruments in proportion to each other? In any case such measurements are a very good starting point. It doesn't free you from knowing orchestration though. From your table we can gather that a bassoon has a dynamic range of 30 db. That means that it's loudest possible sound is 30 db louder that it's quietest. It can be very different for each register though. The low register will have a smaller dynamic range than that, (probably around 15 to 20 db) simply because a bassoon can not play as quiet there. The opposite goes for it's high register: the dynamic range may be very similar to the low register (15 to 20 db maybe), but this time because the high notes can not be as loud as in the deep register. With that in mind, you would have to set an individual dynamic range for each register of each instrument. I think that's not currently possible in the VI Pro Software. And while it may be nice to have, I think that it isn't terribly important either. If you use VSL's 'natural volume' feature (and Dietz has explained how to set it up properly) you should be fine in most cases. When making a mockup there are far more noticeable deviations from a real recording than the instruments balance. Interesting as this discussion is, I think it focuses on a tiny detail that most people won't even notice.

If you have Sibelius, Wallander's Note Performer is a good tip. It uses algorithms (derived from real performances) to shape the playback of your score to be similar to a real performance. It won't sound as realistic as a mockup, but it's a great tool to check such things as the balance between the instruments etc. I guess that may come somewhat close to what you are wishing for. And in my opinion it is better suited to 'teach you how it normally works' than a set of samples, which also has to cater to the ones who need the freedom for their daily work (there is a rather large community of people using samples for media compositions. It's actually much bigger than the ones who do 'classical' music with samples, I guess. And for these people 'reality' isn't the first priority, or even the second. But rather consistency throughout the instruments, flexibility, freedom...).

As an aside: I don't think Tchaikovsky made a mistake there, far from it. I think he noted an ideal that a performance should aim for, eventhough it can't be executed literally (a bassoon really can't play pppppp there). The problem in the recording lies with the clarinet, which is too quiet already so that the bassoonist has no chance for a smooth transition. He should help him out there and play a bit louder than that, while still keeping the overall impression of a morendo.

My bad if you were exclusively talking about VSL's natural volume. It's true that I kindof expanded the subject without warning ^^.

To Dominique:

About the dynamic range, I explained that my data is regardless of the note, meaning each time the softest equals the ppp of the softer register, and the strongest is the strongest of the stronger register. The result is a data not depending on the register you play, but it doesn't mean that your instrument will be able to reach that particular volume with every notes.

As I said, using the xfader at least, the vsl instruments I use are not completely "normalized". They have strong and weak registers already, and with a little tweaking on the dynamic range scaler, I can have some "realistic" behaviours on the whole dynamic range without having to think about it anymore. Of course, i'm sure it's not perfect, but it's more than close enough.

And for my winds and brass, which are all sample modeling's, once you set up correctly the dynamic range, since they are semi synthesis, they behave naturally already, with credible changes in the dynamic range depending on the register. The main purpose of my whole method is to set a "global dynamic range" on the instrument, to be able to balance it with the others. If internally, the instrument is unbalanced with itself, it won't be fixed. But in my experience, it's not the case.

One thing I didn't mention : I think this whole method became necessary because I combined several different libraries, which I had to balance intelligently. I guess VSL products are more or less balanced within themselves, so with a "Only vsl setup", it might not be as useful. Don't know for sure, though.

on the "Tchaikovsky" aside^^: I'm not convinced. Noting something so far from reality that it is not fisible (if i'm correct, many if not all orchestras switch that bassoon for a bass clarinet) is not "ideal", it's a mistake^^. Maybe Tchaïkovsky bet on future enhancements on the bassoon so that it would be able to get softer, i don't know. But on a score, if something is not practical, it's not "ideal", it's "not good" ^^. Please keep in mind that I know who we are talking about, one of the greatest composer of all time, whose work is purely astonishing. He's personaly one of my favourite composer (if not THE one), so i'm not at all making a point "against" him.

@Another User said:

I also went to the university....

But you ended up a sycophant attacking people for making feature-requests on computer-program forums, and that's a foolish way to behave, so apparently the university took your money and ran with it.

I think you two could almost continue your arguement in pm, now, since it's not interesting for anybody, and not even relevant to your own post 😛. At that point, who insulted who first isn't relevant any more.

I posted some messages, why don't you answer stuffs about that instead ^^ ?

@Plougot said:

I think you two could almost continue your arguement in pm, now, since it's not interesting for anybody, and not even relevant to your own post 😛. At that point, who insulted who first isn't relevant any more.

I posted some messages, why don't you answer stuffs about that instead ^^ ?

I skimmed your post and it appeared to be squarely on-topic, so I intend to read it carefully when I have the time it warrants, later. In the meantime that housekeeping I performed took only a few seconds.

JimmyHellfire, please use PM for your future personal attacks against me.

@Dominique said:

Anyway, here comes a problem for the 'natural volume' feature. If you wanted to restrict your sample instruments to only what they can play in reality, VSL would have to delete the pp layer for the bassoon's lowest register. So for example, when playing in the bassoon's low register with a volume of, say, 22, there should either be now sound at all or one that is much louder than the requested. I can only imagine the complaints VSL would get if that was the case. And that's but one example. If VSL applied this logic rigorously through all instruments, their libraries would be very inconsistent and tedious to learn. You'd always have to ask yourself: 'oh, why can't I do that particular thing. Ah, yes, it is because this instrument can't play a trill on these two notes'.

One last thing, Dominique, I think you may misunderstand what "volume" is, inside Vienna instruments pro (maybe you just spoke too fast though). But your volume "22" is purely a midi data, traditionnaly on cc7, and in no way indicative of a "real" volume. It just says to the virtual instrument "you have a data of 22 on a maximum of 127". It is written nowhere that the same cc7 data should result in the same dB output on every instrument (no reason whatsoever to have a mute bassoon at cc7 22, even if this bassoon has a pianissimo 10dB louder than the clarinet also playing at cc7 22, for example.) In that case, a logical way to behave would be to have the bassoon way louder, because a bassoon at 22/127 of its "power" is way more powerful than a clarinet at 22/127.

Eh, it's just BachRules and his usual diatribe, well documented on these forums and elsewhere. At least he's consistent.

@JimmyHellfire said:

Eh, it's just BachRules and his usual diatribe, well documented on these forums and elsewhere. At least he's consistent.

Why are you harassing me? You saw monkeys on another forum harass me and you got it in your sycophantic head to mimick the imbeciles? You saw moderators inviting harassment against me, and you took their corruption as an opportunity for you to bully me with impunity, you sadist? It's true that monkeys like you around the internet do obsess over me; but post a link to my "well-documented diatribes" to substantiate your latest personal attack against me, unless you're simply lying. You've attacked me for making a feature-request, and now you're lying in an attempt to justify your offensive conduct, you foolish monkey.

Plougot, yes you are absolutely right. My formulation there is wrong. I meant it as you specified. In it's high register, a bassoon at a cc7 of 22 should sound at, say, 30 db. But in the lowest register, again at a cc7 of 22, it should sound at maybe 40 db.

Not to derail too much from the topic, but one remark on the Tchaikovsky: here's a live (!) recording with the RCO (Christian Thielemann conducting) where this passage works flawlessly with a bassoon!

Tchaikovsky 6. RCO

Admittedly, that's a rare case and it's very risky, but it can work. Especially after the importance of the bassoon at the very beginning of the exposition, I really think there's a structural and poetical logic behind Tchaikovsky's instrumentation there (and not a mistake). And that's completely lost when the passage is played on a bass clarinet.

@Dominique:

I agree, it works wonderfully on the example you posted. I Would be really interesting to know why exactly, but there's no point in arguing, it works. I also concur with your statement, it's more poetic this way.

I would really be interested in knowing why it is so difficult than nearly everybody change it. I thought it was unpractical since I had never heard a "bassoon version" working. But you proved me wrong, it's clearly feasible. And it's better that way.

@BachRules said:

[...] your sycophantic head to mimick the imbeciles? You saw moderators inviting harassment against me, and you took their corruption as an opportunity for you to bully me with impunity, you sadist? It's true that monkeys like you around the internet do obsess over me; but post a link to my "well-documented diatribes" to substantiate your latest personal attack against me, unless you're simply lying. You've attacked me for making a feature-request, and now you're lying in an attempt to justify your offensive conduct, you foolish monkey.

You will see this as a personal attack again, but anyway: This is the last time I'll ask you as much as everybody else to stick to a friendly, constructive tone. Insults to fellow forum members and/or VSL staff will not be tolerated. I will close this thread without further notice otherwise. Anybody who continues to disregard the forum rules will be put under moderation.

BTW: Some of the words you have chosen to post here could be actionable in several countries. I strongly suggest to withdraw the quoted sentences and to apologize. 

@Another User said:

BTW: Some of the words you have chosen to post here could be actionable in several countries. I strongly suggest to withdraw the quoted sentences and to apologize.

I have experience arguing 1st-Amendment cases in real U.S. courts, and I'm willing to take my chances. Despite your toleration of JimmyHellfire's violation of the forum rules, he has harassed and libeled me here, and I stand by my response to that.

@BachRules said:

You didn't call out "civilization 3" for his disrespectful tone, and there's no apparent legitimate reason for your double-standard.

Which part of "as much as everybody else" (in bold letters!)  didn't you understand?