194,737 users have contributed to 42,932 threads and 258,002 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 6 new thread(s), 17 new post(s) and 106 new user(s).
Thanks for your help!
And... it's awesome that you even share this list of offsets etc. That's not to be taken for granted.
Is there, by the way, ever a scenario in which I use the percussion at maximum velocity? Because it seems that, if I turn down the volume enough to avoid hearing damage, I can't hear the rest of the orchestra for most of the time. :P
... pretty much what would happen on a stage with an orchestra when you stand near a Tamtam being hit at fff.
So for clarification: The natural Volume adjusts the volume levels as they would occur when every instrument of a live performance would be close-miked? So when applying these values without MIR I would have to further decrease the volume values of the individual sections according to how far they sit from the listening position, is that correct?
I think you're trying to formalize all that a bit too much, guys. The Natural Volume values are a good starting point - for a pre-configured template, for example - but not a set-in-stone scientific formula for a perfect mix. Don't overthink it! If something's too loud, turn it down.
I think you're trying to formalize all that a bit too much, guys. The Natural Volume values are a good starting point - for a pre-configured template, for example - but not a set-in-stone scientific formula for a perfect mix. Don't overthink it! If something's too loud, turn it down.
I, personally, am perfectly aware that I'm "formalizing" here, but it's important you stress that! đ However, and I can speak just for myself, my experience in this field is so little that I need such formulas for starting points. Some kind of guidance to compensate for a lack of knowledge.
If one tells me, "those are good basic settings, leave those settings untouched, because that's the way it is, but fiddle around with these to your liking", then I'm happy. (Which happened here. :P)
With the MIRx offsets, for instance, I feel that the flutes are too soft. So are the oboes and clarinets. Yesterday, I heard a rehearsal at the Musikverein in Wien and I tried to focus on the woodwinds for that matter. I could clearly hear the flute at all times but wasn't really able to distinguish the clarinet and oboe from the rest of the orchestra. My fried told me that, generally, the latter two need to be exposed and separated by the composer/orchestrator to be clearly audible, otherwise they just color the tone or merge with the violas for instance. --> turning the flutes up in my mixer would have been the right choice, possibly. But turning up oboes and clarinets maybe not (in my particular case they play in the same register as some other instruments)... do you see where this is going? đ
All the best,
Lukas
PS.: I LOVE this forum... đ
My fried told me that, generally, the latter two need to be exposed and separated by the composer/orchestrator to be clearly audible, otherwise they just color the tone or merge with the violas for instance. --> turning the flutes up in my mixer would have been the right choice, possibly. But turning up oboes and clarinets maybe not (in my particular case they play in the same register as some other instruments)... do you see where this is going?
Not fully sure. đ But the bottom line here, I think, is that ultimately this is more a matter of orchestration and arrangement, than of settings and values. Of course, Woodwinds often blend in for orchestral color, or round off the edges. But then again, they're used as conveyors of central musical ideas, exposed lines and virtuosic passages just as well. And whether they stick out or blend in - isn't it entirely up to the intention of the composer and has everything to do with the number of players, the "architecture" of the composition, if/who doubles whom and which musical function everyone else in the ensemble has been assigned to?
Woodwinds are used for all kinds of things - color, texture, melodies, solos, harmony, ostinati, ornaments, runs and flourishes ... and they blend (or don't) with other instruments to manifold effect. surely you can't follow one general rule for all these highly distinct applications and their "mechanics".
I personally use MIRx most of the time, and I do have natural volume activated across the board. But I can't remember a single project where I left CC11 as well as the mixer faders untouched - there's always something I need to change. And it's never the same either đ
A software can provide a reasonable starting point, but it can't "know" what music you're writing. It's helpful, it provides a guideline, but unfortunately (?) it can't keep us in safe waters until we have gained a somewhat reliable ability of judgement, or relieve us of the need for it.
So in the end it does come down to: knowing what you want to hear and what is possible/reasonable (although we may take the liberty to disregard this in the world of sampling every now and then) and adjusting settings accordingly. Which, in turn, requires a lot of listening to music, analyzing and learning. You're obviously doing that anyway.
As much as it is an annoying truism - the whole "use your ears!" engineering mantra really is the answer to a lot of questions ... well kind of đ
Some here are confusing Natural Volume with Artistic Volume. Artistic Volume is a matter of taste. There are no rules. Use your ears. This is art, and it's all about the artists.
Natural Volume, in contrast, is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of simulation of a real orchestra in a real room. The simulation is either accurate or it's not. This is science, and it has nothing to do with artistic preference.
Natural Volume, in contrast, is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of simulation of a real orchestra in a real room. The simulation is either accurate or it's not. This is science, and it has nothing to do with artistic preference.
It's accurate enough. You'll still have to use your ears - artist or not. That's just the reality of it. And we're not talking about "taste" either, but about function.
"Science" is a big word here. As well as "simulation". How accurate can the simulation of natural volume be, if the whole of the instrument in the simulation is represented by merely a few velocity layers? Just one example. There are so many factors that play into this.
I hardly dare to say "yes" - unless you promise not to use these values as rules, but rather as starting points for your own settings. đ
Kind regards,
Well, of course it is only a starting point, but this information is absolutely crucial. As a rule of thumb one can say that the volume is reduced by half ( which means -6db) when the distance is doubled. So, if you sit in the 1st row and have the strings sitting 4m in average away from you while the brass is 8m apart and the tamtam 10 there would be an offset of 6db for the brass and maybe another one, totaling 7db for the percussion.
In reality, things are slighty more complex than that. There's some interesting, highly condensed information available on this famous site:
-> http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculatorSonephon.htm
... this is a short quote from that page that gives us something to chew on:
"Set the volume of the radio double as loud or half as loud." Who does not know, how to do this, is a normal person. Psycho-acousticians are telling us, that it has to be 10 dB level difference. Try to cool your hot coffee to the point "half as hot" - and think it over. Your own feeling may be much different to other persons.An increase from 6 dB to 10 dB is perceived by most listeners as "double" the volume. These sensations are highly subjective, meaning that different people will hear this in different ways, and "twice as loud" is a much harder thing to guess than something.
The human perception of loudness is perceived differently from each subject. In other words it is one's own perception of sound and it is subjective of sound pressure level SPL.
... to add a personal note to the subject: I'm a mixing music professionally since almost 30 years now, and I've not once felt the necessity to stick to any kind of rule for finding a good balance between all the elements involved (... "good" in the sense of: Plausible and pleasing, not according to a code).
And in those cases where the balance wasn't _that_ good in the end, a list of values wouldn't have helped a lot, believe me! đŗ đ
đ
To coin a phrase: When we talk about the "realism" of virtual orchestration (or any kind of recorded music, actually), we don't mean the raw, merciless realism of a surveillance camera, but rather the well-shaped, thoroughly designed and edited visual impression of a movie.
Kind regards,
There's a clear, undisputable formula to define a circle. There's no formula to define "the" microphone (or a human ear drum in the real world.), though. Two types of microphones will give you different results, even when they're put in the the same position. Two audio engineers will create differernt results when asked to re-create their impressions (or their idea) of an orchestra playing in a certain space.
Science and art are of equal importance for human society, but the aren't the same. Trivial, but still something to keep in mind. The concepts which MIR is based on are scientifically underpinned, but its aims are purely artistic, not technical.
Kind regards,
I'm happy that this question makes so many people discuss and all the answers are very interesting and helpful.
Some here are confusing Natural Volume with Artistic Volume. Artistic Volume is a matter of taste. There are no rules. Use your ears. This is art, and it's all about the artists.Natural Volume, in contrast, is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of simulation of a real orchestra in a real room. The simulation is either accurate or it's not. This is science, and it has nothing to do with artistic preference.
All my, sometimes vague, questions, which might sound like a cry for a "world formula", are just aiming at learning to differentiate between what he/she divides into "natural" and "artisitc" volume/rules and have the first settled to learn about and work with the latter. đ Or to keep it short and simple: Get the science right and have my "personal orchestra" at hand on which I can more or less rely - which keeps me within the bounds of realism, while exploring... đ
Thanks to you again,
Lukas
The concepts which MIR is based on are scientifically underpinned, but its aims are purely artistic, not technical.
I'll take VSL's "Natural Volume" accordingly.
I still want tools which automatically simulate the air-pressure from an orchestra measured at a specific point in virtual space. I mean this as a benign statement about myself; but at this rate, I expect some will object, and maybe some will even accuse me of seeking a "perfect mix button" -- when I'm actually seeking no such thing.
Mr/Mrs. tek0010, you and your IP address remind me of a certain user several months ago ... hmmm. đ¤
But anyway:
There's a clear, undisputable formula to define a circle.
Similarly, there's clear undisputable math describing the air-pressure at a spatial point some defined distance from a sound-source:
[...]
... which has nothing to do with a presumed "scientific volume" of an instrument on a stage. So many variables with fuzzy definitions: Which instrument? Who's the player? What notes were played? On what stage? And: Who has been listening?
To simplify the quest for an answer to all of these questions is what MIR's "Natural Volume" feature was meant to be used for. It's based on extensive measurements of instruments, fine-tuned by ear. It should be seen as suggestion, not as a rule, because there can't be one.
******
Dear all: I think that all aspects of this issue have been covered now, and I would suggest to close this thread now, before we start runnig in circles. Thanks for your understanding.
