"Dominique" wrote:... 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.
If you handed a bassoonist a score with a low-register note at "pp", he would play a note. That would be what's natural. Silence would be unnatural, so it's odd to me that you claim silence would be "natural".
Quote: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.
I never suggested VSL should do anything like that. You must have misunderstood what I wrote. I don't even know which of my words you're referring to.
Quote: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.
The "logic" you're criticizing here is nothing I've ever suggested.
Quote:... Despite your claims that 'natural volume' is a measurable, invariable quantity, it isn't.
"Natural volume", as I've defined the term, is absolutely a measureable, invariable quantity. The issue here is that you're defining the term "natural volume" differently than I'm defining it. You and I are speaking different languages, and that's a semantic issue and nothing more. So when you say "no, it's impossible", you're not addressing anything I've actually suggested.
Quote:The balance between the instruments depends on the context. Like it or not, but you yourself will have to take it into account and adjust some things accordingly.
This is perfectly consistent with everything I've suggested.
Quote:Software can only get you so far.
I have earned a good living making and selling music, despite my beliefs about software, which beliefs you assume need correcting.
I got straight A's at CCRMA. I got straight A's from:
Max Mathews,
John Chowning,
John Pierce, and
Julius Smith
In 1997, I assisted Dave Smith in creating the world's first professional software synthesizer for the PC, which won the 1998 Editors' Choice Award from Electronic Musician Magazine. It was substantially sample-based, and the science of playing back samples at particular volumes hasn't changed since 1998.
My other degree is in artificial-intelligence, and I am CEO of a company developing software to assist composers. My company is not in competition with VSL.
But you will correct me about software here. I will say one thing about software, you'll imagine I've said something different, and instead of quoting the words I've actually typed about software, you'll criticze the imaginary thing which I never typed.
Quote:There's no way around learning about the individual instruments you are using if you want a 'natural' sounding orchestration, and balance.
Reality outside the VSL sphere disproves your claim. Load up a Symphobia ensemble, press one note, and natural timbral balance emerges. Symphobia will do this even if a cat walks across your keyboard and steps on a key. A cat who knows nothing about individual instruments.
Load up various Mural patches, play them simultaneously, with assorted velocities, and only natural timbral balances emerge. You tell me things are impossible, but I've witnessed these things myself, so I have to filter your opinion accordingly.
There are so many ways to 'natural' timbral balance; so many more ways than you're conceiving here.
Quote:So I'd advise to pick up a book about orchestration and learn the basics.
I have half a dozen books about orchestration, and nothing in any of them invalidates even the smallest point I've made about natural volume. However, I believe you've misunderstood most everything I've typed about natural volume. Who are you, and why are you advising me about anything?
Quote:That way VSL's 'natural volume' will still be a timesaver (because you don't have to set up everything from ground, but only tweak a thing or two depending on the context of your music), but you won't depend totally upon it.
You want me to approach music the way you approach it, but I don't really want to be more like you. I've never made a "mockup" and I don't plan to. And yet for some reason, people on the internet continually tell me how I should approach my "mockups". I wish these people could find personal fulfillment without imagining that I aspire to be like them.
Quote:And you could use whatever sample library you'd want, not just the ones with 'natural volume'.
I already have and use orchestral sample libraries from over a dozen companies, so I don't understand your point here?