As Paul so succinctly put it,
Middle C on a piano is the assumption.
Stick a tuning meter on any good orchestra, and you'd be surprised how much variation there is. That is one of the reasons they sound live.
Using a bow on a string is a matter of friction, so there cannot be by the very nature of action a perfect pitch for each and every note.
As for using long notes for short bits, i'm surprised, given the vast range of samples you have available, that you'd do this. It's your choice, but i wonder if your selection is wise, given the alternatives.
I would personally favour some natural expression in an instrument, particularly strings, simply because they'd sound like a synthesiser otherwise. (see other discussions in this forum alone about lesser sample libraries and film music and why it so often sounds the same and artificial.)
As for the argument that each sample should be absolutely perfect without any sort of bow pressure sound, or instrument resonance, these samples are in effect live recordings. No human being is capable of exactly the same response each and every time. VSL obviously understands this, probably more than you do. (It's reflected in the quality of their product.)
Why don't you go back and listen to great Cello players playing cello concertos, with your ear focused on pitch? It'll give you a more realistic view of what is live sound, that elusive beast we continue to aspire too.
(It's been my experience playing ln orchestras, that cello players tend to sound slighty flatter on the top two strings. This is a generalisation, but it's what the ears hear.)
And I share Williams view. A little more bite on some notes tends to give a more realistic sound overall. The Cello has a markedly different sound between the two bottom and two top strings. For the uninitiated, a coarse generalisation would be to consider the two top strings on a cello the molto expressivo, or 'solo' strings, and the two bottom strings to be 'orchestral' strings. It's worth keeping in mind the top strings are generally, by nature of pitch and playing techinique, slighty more penetrating.
(Paul if you have anything to add, or correct in this, please jump in. You're the cello player, my playing days were restricted to W/W, percussion, and piano)

If however you want everything exactly the same, buy a synthesiser.

Regards to you all,

Alex.

@hermitage59 said:

(Paul if you have anything to add, or correct in this, please jump in. You're the cello player, my playing days were restricted to W/W, percussion, and piano)

If however you want everything exactly the same, buy a synthesiser.

Alex.

Hehehe! No, no. That's poor prose on my part Alex. No - Herb is the Cello player. I'm the lowest of the low - a keyboard player.

The only other thing that springs to mind - bearing in mind I've been away from music and my area for some 14 days on and off - is the Elgar Cello Concerto as played by Jaqui Dupre. The tuning at times - i.e. the tuning as perceived while she's playing - is all over the place. But that's what makes it human and real and great. There are probably, or maybe not, better versions of this particular work, but by and large, it's the tuning, or mistuning at random points in any given work that brings us to another discussion on this board sometime ago.

Recording sampled string sections that are not perfect so as to help in creating that overall ambience that is more 'live'. Live sound btw doesn't necessarily mean to me 'real' before anyone gets cute and starts waffling on about placement and orchestral balance etc.

Bests

PR

Here's one of those philosophical differences --- I DO want to make recordings like Jackie Dupre's, and Pablo Casal's, with tuning all over the place. But like her, and like him, I want the tuning to be expressive, not accidental! To do that it's necessary to have trustworthy samples, and to put your bow noise where it should be not where it accidentally falls. But this argument has been treated several times before here and elsewhere, and it's not that important, maybe.

Gugliemo,
I can understand your philosophy, and the intent on which you base it.
But there's another point to consider in the pursuit of live sound, and the tools we have to work with.
Unless deliberately manipulated by us, a synthesiser is capable of producing a tone at precisely A440 if that is our parameter. In a visual/orchestral sense this would be the equivalent of placing a microthin card on the string of a violin and bowing that string with a device capable of a perfect rate of pressure and friction for a period of time. Even then we would not use the start of the sound, because the initial push of the bow would affect the tuning as the vibration of the string begins its 'journey'. No vibrato, and absolutely no deviation in the width of the string oscilation might get us close to that A440 parameter.
The reality is, the bow is operated by a human being, incapable of a perfect stroke just by the nature of our ' human machinery'. Likewise, the pitch is determined not by the microthin card, but the width of a finger. No two human beings have fingers the same width, so each human equivalent of A440 is going to be different. Then introduce expressive content like vibrato, and A440 goes from being microthin and precise to a broad sound that is, again in reality, more accurately described as A440 +/-, and then some.
Additional factors?
At the start of each note in a 1st violin section, no matter how good, each player instinctively 'finds' the group tuned note. So a semibreve played adagio is more in tune after the start of the note not at its precise introduction. Then the player is influenced by the note to follow. In the key of c, a section playing a b natural will, if written as a final cadence, be 'instinctively conscious' of the B natural's role as a leading note, and its been my experience, this note will be a little sharper in pitch, and even further away from 'A440.'
We have been conditioned by years of artifically produced sounds, and our attempts to manipulate them, into believing that a collection of musicians playing live is 'A440' capable, and nothing could be further from the truth. That live sound we strive for is not the product of singularly fine tuning, but the rare and wonderous quality of humanity, and its incapacity to achieve 'perfection.' Instead we gain a new perspective of what is ideal from expressive and accurate playing, the quality of the composition and orchestration, and the 'passion' and 'humanity of the performance itself.
VSL have produced a library that in itself, brings us closer than ever, and better than any other product, to that ideal. Not because each note is 'A440' perfect, or that every bow stroke is mechanically perfect, but for the humanity in the samples, those tiny differences between each note, dynamic, and bowstroke. They've gone as close as i think they should to the 'ideal', and any attempt to fine tune those samples to the nth degree you desire will certainly remove the 'humanity', and take us further away from our collective compositional aspiration. VSL is certainly accurate, more so than others, and the precision is wonderful, but best of all its still human, something other equivalently marketed sample libraries singularly fail to achieve.
I've sat in orchestras and played, and you'd be surprised how broad tuning is, how much it varies according to harmony and cadence and individual playing techinique, and how all these and other inaccuracies add up to a sound that is human and brilliant. Instead of using a note that for you is 'out of tune', why not use a short note of another type? Will this new note be so far removed from the intent of your phrase, to be unuseable? Or will it give you the opposite? a 'human' sound, subtly different and yet still well within the broad brush of your piece?

Regards,

Alex.

Van Bebber is certainly a little confused: he does not understand the simple principle that samples must include irregularities of playing if they are to be natural-sounding. They are not defects, but deliberate inclusions of the living, breathing irregularities of actual musical performance.

I am tired of incompetent people criticizing something on this Forum because they do not understand how to use it.

Alex,

The orchestras I've sat among play as you say, widely! But listen to a top level professional orchestra -- a different story, usually. Recently I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra play Shostakovich with beautiful, pure intonation, and with a vibrato like crickets, that is, together. (They also played Bartok and illustrated why orchestras have trouble with some modern music, following just intonation to dead ends and pointless purity). But it doesn't take them any audible time to tune up a chord, not to mention just a note. And at a much lower level, when I listen to my daughters playing in unison with their violin teacher, the sound at its best is completely pure, they are thinking the same pitch and their fingers hit the string at just the right place, no adjustment necessary. That kind of mush-tune playing is more a symptom of the amateur orchestra with one rehearsal a week.

And as to substituting notes, sure, that is what I do.

Gugliemo,
I was referring to a professional orchestra. I'm not talking about a wide mushy sound, nor a 'once a week' rehearsal outfit.
The parameters i speak of are fine, not coarse, and my references are within a tight sphere pertaining only to a professional ensemble.
I guess it depends on how good our ears are, and what is our definition of excellence.


Regards,

Alex.

@William said:

Van Bebber is certainly a little confused: he does not understand the simple principle that samples must include irregularities of playing if they are to be natural-sounding. They are not defects, but deliberate inclusions of the living, breathing irregularities of actual musical performance.

I am tired of incompetent people criticizing something on this Forum because they do not understand how to use it.

William-
You have no way of knowing my competence or lack-thereof. This judgment on your part of my "competence" (in whatever discipline to which you refer) with no evidence shows your ignorance, not mine. And, to follow your reasoning, I guess VSL should leave in flubbed notes for brass instruments here and there, because it happens in real life... And we should have incorrect notes sampled in the woodwinds because it happens in real life right? What utterly flawed logic, William. Nice try.

Look, Gugliel has a valid point here that the sample stands out from others and should be fixed. You use this as an opportunity to attack someone's "competence," which you know nothing of. This is very telling of you as a person.

Flubbed notes ? Excuse me?

When did I refer to "flubbed notes"?

I am speaking of natural, authentic, musical expression.

There are NO FLUBBED NOTES in this library, to put it mildly. Brilliantly played, perfectly recorded notes, expertly programmed, yes - but flubbed? Hardly.

What I am referring to - and you missed - includes irregularities of attack, slight pitch shifts within the sample, attack timing, dynamics between samples, dynamics within samples, dynamic range within specific sample groups, timbral changes within individual as well as grouped samples, note length, audible keying, stereo imaging changes, and many other factors which you have never thought about. You assume all of these are...

"flubbed notes."

You have obviously never created samples. I have, and so have the people here who are the State of the Art, big-time, and make your protestations look - to put it bluntly - idiotic.

There is little point in discussing these matters with mentalities such as yours. Your mind is made up on the negative-dysfunctional side already. So if you wish to rage about this - go ahead. I enjoy observing barnyard antics for awhile, but get bored by it after a certain amount of repetition.

William-
First off, I have created my own samples - there you go assuming incorrectly and showing your ignorance (yet again). If I had recorded the A3 cello sample in question, I would have redone it because it sounds so out-of-place when compared to the other samples. I still don't understand your personal attacks on me, they are clearly uncalled-for. Any sane person reading the above posts would see that your attacks were clearly un-provoked, and frankly show a deep-seeded bitterness and insecurity. All I ask is that you don't assume things about me that you clearly don't know, and get to the issue of what is being talked about. Have you even listened to the sample in question? Have you played it repeatedly and compared it all others notes from that instrument? Surely, if you had (assuming, as I do, that you have some musical sense) you would see that this is a pitch and articulation variation that is not up to the world-class standards of the rest of the library. Now, Gugliel asks that VSL take a look at this and I agreed. There was and is no need to personally attack me or Gugliel.
That will be all from you. [:)]
thanks,
mvanbebber

Gugliemo,
Is it possible for you to post a sample of what you're trying to do?
Say 2 or 3 bars? Then at least the sample in question gets an airing in the context and tempo in which you're trying to use it, and we all get a better idea.
I just find it hard to believe that from the use you've described, that a rapid repeat of a sample designed to be played slowly and expressively is the way to go.
Because if that's the case, VSL are getting questioned and their standard queried in this very public forum for the sake of using a sample that's designed for something else, and i think it's fair that we who are commenting, and those who are interested in the products, get a chance to form an opinion based on reality, not conjecture.

Regards,

Alex.

@hermitage59 said:

Gugliemo,
Is it possible for you to post a sample of what you're trying to do?
Say 2 or 3 bars? Then at least the sample in question gets an airing in the context and tempo in which you're trying to use it, and we all get a better idea.
I just find it hard to believe that from the use you've described, that a rapid repeat of a sample designed to be played slowly and expressively is the way to go.
Because if that's the case, VSL are getting questioned and their standard queried in this very public forum for the sake of using a sample that's designed for something else, and i think it's fair that we who are commenting, and those who are interested in the products, get a chance to form an opinion based on reality, not conjecture.

Regards,

Alex.

Good point, I would hope that people would not comment unless they have heard this sample that Gugliel is referring to. A demo would help others to hear the inconsistency in the instrument - and would be much appreciated.

Hey, Alex -- thanks for staying calm! The repeated-note scenario was just to illustrate the front part of the sample, I don't use this patch in that way.

While I have time to forum-browse while waiting for things to load and save and reload and resave, making examples eats directly into work time, so I'll not take that time. Really, I was just playing a low A, forte, half note (crotchet) in moderate tempo, duplicated on two tracks, one with this patch and one with another patch. The note stuck out in the musical line, so I examined it more closely.

@gugliel said:

Here's one of those philosophical differences --- I DO want to make recordings like Jackie Dupre's, and Pablo Casal's, with tuning all over the place. But like her, and like him, I want the tuning to be expressive, not accidental! To do that it's necessary to have trustworthy samples, and to put your bow noise where it should be not where it accidentally falls. But this argument has been treated several times before here and elsewhere, and it's not that important, maybe.

If you want to make recordings like Jackie Dupre's, and Pablo Casal's, hire a good Cello player. Simple solution.