Originally Posted by: thomamd

Sam,

     I personally liked the composition.  And I also liked your giving us an explanation of the piece in background.  It is nice to hear something different here.

Mark

Thank you, Mark!  I appreciate the kind words.

Cheers!

- Sam

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

MMKA, sorry, I was just kidding on some debated topics about dry vs. wet and full vs. starter libraries. Something a bit paradoxical for a big organ.

Paolo

It's easy, just record the organ in space!  Should be a pretty dry library then...

Originally Posted by: daviddln

Hi

Those are all great libraries. I would recommend SYNCHRON-ized Dimension Strings I. There is a portamento articulation and a great control of vibrato. 

Best, David

I second this recommendation.  Fantastic library!

Made with the Bosendorfer Imperial (Synchron Version):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1BHn-BM0f8

Comments/feedback/pancakes always welcome and appreciated! 

- Sam

On my to-do list!  Thanks, Stephen!

My two cents,

I only own the BBO Brass Packs, and I highly recommend them for what you've stated your goals are.  The low brass pack, especially, is incredibly strong and powerful sounding in a way that is difficult to recreate with the VI libraries or even SYN Dim. Brass alone without some MIR Pro (or other spatialization) magic.  As long as you,'re okay with the pre-selected instrumentation (which is the standard low brass section plus some optional contrabass oomph, pretty applicable in just about all your given intentions), it's very good bang for your buck.  Ganymede (which I don't own, but intend to at some point) is also quite robust and functional for its price point!

- Sam

Originally Posted by: Docmaklang

Hi Sam,

thanks, that helps a lot. A legato patch as basic sound for my expression maps makes totally sense. I'm not quite sure how to tell dorico what to do if I have f.e. two notes at the same time. In a legato performance patch it will jump to the second note. Do you have any ideas.

 

Thanks a lot,

Matze!

Yes, you turn on the polyphonic legato feature in Vienna Instruments.  Unfortunately, I think it's only available in the Pro version (I might be mistaken - worth checking up on!)  I have VI Pro and the feature is on by default, whether I'm using a preset or not.  

To find the feature, go to the Advanced view in Vienna instruments (upper right hand corner), then - under the slot grid (the white strips that say 1a, 2a, 1b, 2b, etc.), click on the "Advanced" tab.  If you have a legato (or interval performance) patch loaded, then select the Interval Mode dialog box (right under "AB Switch") and switch it to Poly.

I hope that helps!

- Sam

Originally Posted by: Docmaklang

1. Should I use the presets coming with the sounds or is it best to make my own ones? 
2. If I do my own ones, what’s the best way to do dynamics? CC1 on Velocity X-Fades and Vel.XF global off? I can’t do that just for long notes and have still my velocity for my shorts, right?
3. I like the legato patches, esp. for the strings. Is there a cool way to have them as ‚natural‘ or ‚basic‘ in my expression maps in f.e. Dorico? Is there a way to switch in notation to the polyphonic version? Otherwise it’s not really usable in Dorico, isn’t it?
4. Would you use the Vienna Instruments player for every instrument or would you combine it in the Vienna ensemble?

1) The presets don't alter the sound; they're just pre-fabricated keyswitch and controller arrangements.  If they are intuitive to you, use them!  Otherwise, I would make your own.  Both VI and Synchron Player are quite flexible when it comes to this, so you're in luck there.

2) I prefer CC1 for velocity x-fade and to keep global x-fade on, only turning it off (via a CC I assign to the toggle in VI Pro) during a staccato-heavy passage.  I've found that for most articulations, velocity x-fade is the most intuitive way of controlling the intensity (and, by extension, volume) of the sound, with expression available to smooth out the rough edges.

3) I don't use Dorico or Cubase and thus don't know how expression maps work, BUT...if you make a custom preset and make the first articulation/patch it loads up on the legato patch, that will be your default.  You can also set up the matrix to change the legato type (fast vs. slow) etc. based on velocity or playing speed.

4) Vienna Ensemble is not like Kontakt - it's meant to offload the heavy-lifting of sample processing/mixing to another machine (or make it more efficient on a single machine).  You can create multi-instrument setups in Vienna Instruments, however (with up to 8 outs, I think).  I personally just use one instance of VI for each instrument; it's very cpu light.

Hope that helps!

- Sam

Originally Posted by: Stevie

Did anyone already create banks for Synchronized Woodwinds?

Not to my knowledge.  If anyone does, I do hope they share!

Speaking of which, in case you (or anyone else) wasn't aware, there's a repository for user-created Reaticulate banks here: https://github.com/jtackaberry/reaticulate/tree/master/userbanks

I'm planning on uploading these to that as soon as my brain can un-scatter itself enough to remember to do so 

- Sam

These sound fantastic!  There's so much attention to detail.  The fact that you didn't play these in is - to me - really, really impressive.  Thank you for sharing these.

Your point about tempo mapping is well taken, and valuable advice.  If I may ask, what mic settings, levels, and EQ/reverb/compression/etc. did you end up using?  That these come through on my crappy laptop speakers crystal clear (and on Soundcloud, no less!) is an achievement in and of itself.

Hats off,

- Sam

KITO (and anyone else interested):

Here you go:

https://seventhsam.com/music/blog/how-to-create-custom-reaticulate-banks-for-your-sample-libraries

Hope that helps!

- Sam

Originally Posted by: KITO

You're the Master! Thank You for making Reaper and Synchron-ized libraries easier to use. I'm kind of new to Reaper (was using Logic Pro before) and just downloaded Synchron-ized Special Edition 1. Are you planning of also developing this managment for the mentioned library in the near future? If not, where can I learn how to do it? I would obviously share it with the community! Thanks in advance!

You're too kind 

I would totally make articulation banks for the SYN-zed Special Editions, but I don't have them (I have some of the VI versions) and I have no justifiable reason to spend money on them.

That said, thank you for asking me about this because it reminded me of something on my to-do list: to create a brief tutorial on my website about making custom REATICULATE banks.  So...gimme a few days (at most) and I'll post the link here for you (and anyone else interested) when it's ready!  Also, if you don't want to wait that long, the necessary (albeit slightly...opaque...) information on making custom banks is available on the Reaticulate website itself.  

- Sam

(P.S. If you're new to REAPER, you may not be aware of the SWS extension: https://www.sws-extension.org/.  These are amazing add-ons (and free) and will make REAPER all kinds of amazing.)

Macker,

First off, thank you so much for taking the time to explain.  Super helpful.

The routing makes sense now!  I don't use LPX but I'm 99.9% sure my DAW of choice will have a similar way to do what you explained.  I'll have a go (or two, or three, or five) with it and experiment away!  I'm also glad to have the impetus to learn more about binaural panning.  No worries about a demo - I'm knee deep in absorbing all I can about mixing and spatialization so I'll hear and compare for myself eventually :-)  If only there were infinite time and infinite tolerance for coffee...

Again, thank you so much!  If I figure out anything neat or worth sharing, I'll be sure to return the favor.

- Sam  

The way to avoid these dramatic volume jumps is to use the Expression controller in conjunction with Velocity X-Fade.  If you only use velocity X-fade, there will be an unavoidable jump in volume between the p and f layer.  However, if you lower the Expression (which is really just a granular volume control) to "smooth" out the volume jump, you can - in almost every case - get the desired crescendo/diminuendo.  

I like to think of velocity X-fade as the "rough" volume control and Expression as the "fine" volume control.  Alternatively, you could think of velocity X-fade as "intensity" and Expression as "volume".

- Sam

Kai,

If you use REAPER as your DAW, you can use this: www.reaticulate.com

Makes it unbelievably easy!

- Sam

Macker,

Thank you for sharing all of this!  I'm always grateful when anyone shares information/experience/etc.

I have a few questions, if you don't mind:

If I'm understanding you correctly, your current method is to take each player in Syn. Dim Strings/Brass, output that player into two mono channels (one balanced hard right, one balanced hard left), feed those two mono channels into one channel in VEP7/DAW, and then use a binaural panner to position those hard-panned mono signals into your desired spatialization.

If I understand that correctly, then I think it's safe to say that's a fair bit of work compared to simply panning each player with PowerPan, using the pre-rendered IR's, etc.  My question is: what makes your method work/sound better than those other methods?  Is it somehow cleaner (no IR reverb buildup)?  Does the binaural panner do something special that PowerPan doesn't?  

Please understand: I'm not trying to argue or flame.  Rather, I genuinely want to understand and get better at the whole enterprise.  I've been experimenting endlessly with spatialization techniques and I'm thrilled to consider and try this one as well!

- Sam

Macker:

Originally Posted by: Macker

Sam, in answer to your question about changing overall volume, it does not change the objectively-measurable relative balance you've already set up. The non-linearity of decibel-scale faders is perfectly innocent in this regard, although it's helpful and generally good practice to keep the faders in the zone where you get best dB per inch resolution.

Wow, you just saved me a lot of time worrying about a non-issue!  For some reason, I was stuck on this idea that changing an entire section's volume meant shift-clicking every fader.  I seem to have forgotten that buses/folders exist.    Thank you for clearing that up!

- Sam

JASEN:

Originally Posted by: jasensmith

Stephen talked about cheating and I cheat a lot because I'm not that concerned with a pure orchestral approach to balance and levels and all that. For example, my solo instruments tend to sound louder than their corresponding ensembles because I'm trying to accentuate a theme or motif and that's what I hear in professional recordings of professional orchestras.

Same here (in regards to "cheating").  There's so much potential the digital realm has to offer.  However, I'm a "learn the rules to break them" kind of person...

Originally Posted by: jasensmith

Also, I use some tricks I've learned in the Pop world like exaggerating the panning a bit and then using a stereo imager for sound separation. 

Just to clarify:

Exaggerate the panning as in pan in MIR (or Syn Player, or whatever) wider than you normally would?  And then use a stereo imaging plugin on the stereo or master bus to...widen the image even more?  Wouldn't that put things monstrously out of phase?

Originally Posted by: jasensmith

Also if you have a de-esser use it to reduce the sibilance you hear in high pitched screeching Violins, Piatis, symbols etc.

Speaking of which!  Do you know a good plugin/technique to surgically target the frequencies of the key click sounds on the VI woodwind libraries?

Thanks so much for taking the time to help me!

- Sam

Stephen:

Originally Posted by: stephen limbaugh

Pardon the disorganized thoughts here:

I hereby pardon you 

Originally Posted by: stephen limbaugh

I imported a couple of modern classical recordings (not film scores, because they "cheat" the levels on things like the harps, celeste, string shorts, etc) and then did mockups of those excerpts.  I think one was Nimrod by Elgar, Beethoven 3rd opening, some tutti chords from Mahler 5, stuff like that...

This is fantastic advice.  Thank you!  I will do this.

Originally Posted by: stephen limbaugh

I can't remember where the FF chords landed on my stereo bus, but I'm sure it was in that -6 range.  I almost always end up automating the stereo bus fader on super soft stuff (like that Elgar variation).  And in my experience, the lower levels are even with the loud among the instruments.

I'm a little unclear as to what you mean.  Do you mean to say that - in the recordings you referenced - it sounded like that super soft passages were brought up on the stereo bus and so you did the same?  If so, this makes a lot of sense, since what I'm essentially worried about is that in order to preserve a serious dynamic range yet avoid clipping, the distance in volume between the loud and the soft parts will be so great that the soft parts are just too quiet.  Buuut...if none of the loud stuff is playing, raising the stereo bus (albeit subtly so as not to betray the intended dynamic range too much) circumvents that problem.  Is that a correct understanding?

Originally Posted by: stephen limbaugh

Adhere to orchestration principles.  If you have 3 flutes on middle C, playing as loud as they can, and a cello melody in tenor clef with some french horn chords gluing things together, those flutes should not stick out.  If they do, your flutes are probably too loud across the board.

How accurate, would you say, are Rimsky-Korsakov's approximations?  A childhood of bad EDM has left my ears having a ways to go towards intuitive understanding of orchestral balance, so any training wheels help... 

And, of course, thanks so much for all your help!  Your advice is gold.

- Sam

As I understand it, getting a good approximation of the orchestral "sound" in the digital world has to do with setting the volume (gain) of each of the instances in relation to one another so that their respective dynamic ranges play realistically against one another.  For example, a single woodwind should be set at a volume so that, even at it's maximum dynamic level, it never exceeds that of, say, a Trumpet or French Horn.  So, the "Natural Volume" feature - again, as I understand it - is there to use as a starting point from which to make adjustments as needed towards the desired balance between all instruments.  As far as I know, there's no "scientific" way to do this and it just has to be ultimately a judgement of the ear, taste, and the desired soundscape.

So, my question:

Once the balance in volume between the instruments has been established to the desired amount of realism (so that none of their dynamics is out of place with the other), is it good practice to then set the volumes as a whole to a point where, when the entire orchestra is playing FF tutti, the meter is something like -6db below 0?  My worry is that gain reductions in dB are not on an even scale (unless I'm wrong??), and so reducing, say, a woodwind's volume too much to avoid a tutti FF section clipping will result in the woodwind being waaaay too quiet, but if I raise the woodwind, the balance will be out of whack.

Of course, I'll be fiddling with all this and experimenting, but I'd be over the moon if any of you vastly more experienced mixological wizards out there would be willing to impart some of your wisdom :-)

Thanks,

- Sam  

An inquiry:

In the (Lush) presets provided with SYN-zed Dimension Strings, I notice that the main difference between those presets and the non-Lush presets are that certain players of the ensemble have the run-time delay set to 20.  

I'm assuming this is to create a sense of depth by having the signal of the players in back reach you at a slightly later time than the players in front.  Is this assumption correct, or is there more to it than that?

Thanks!

- Sam  

Originally Posted by: absynthe1812

Vel X-fade is on, but I think the problem is that I don't know how to access all the CC controls from LMMS. I'll play around with it a little more, but do you know of other DAWs that can access these CC controls more easily?

Yes, all of them :-)  Any good DAW should be able to handle CC automation of any kind within its MIDI and track editors.  That said, I'd be *extremely* surprised if LMMS couldn't handle CC automation (since that's an essential part of MIDI programming), so I'd check the manual.  If it can't for whatever reason, a DAW that can is essential.

As for other DAWS:

Most users on this forum - from what I've gathered, either use Cubase (PC) or Logic Pro (Mac) - as those DAWs seem to have the most robust MIDI-oriented features.  Other options that I know very little about include Sonar, Studio One, Digital Performer, and FL Studio.  Two very well known DAWs are Pro Tools and Ableton Live, but both of those are more geared towards mixing/mastering/recording (Pro Tools) and live performance (Ableton), although they can handle MIDI reasonably well.  I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting...

The DAW I use is a bit of an outlier called REAPER.  Unlike the other DAWs above, it comes with almost no stock plug-ins, a very bare-bones interface, and a steep learning curve.  However, once you get a handle on it, you can customize, re-arrange, and script it your heart's content.  If you're a DIY-er type that likes to mod things, I highly recommend it (it's also $60!).

If you decide to give it a try, you can feel free to hit me up if you need help using it.  If you decide to give one of the others a try, I'm sure there are other folks on this forum who can help you get up and running (esp. with Cubase and Logic). 

All the best!

- Sam     

I've got a i7-4820k and I'm able to play the SYN-pianos with all mics at that kind of latency even without a m.2 SSD (although I still stream from a regular SSD).  Point is: your planned upgrade is going to knock it out of the park.

That said, it's not just CPU - it's all potential bottlenecks.  I was having major issues with latency (even on REAPER, a very efficient DAW).  I wanted to improve performance without having to upgrade my CPU (I didn't future-proof my motherboard intelligently, unfortunately...), so I asked around/researched and found two things dramatically smoothed out bottlenecks and allowed me to get the desired live-playing performance:

1. Using VEP7.  That program, even in a single box set-up like mine, does some funky magic that just plain works to reduce latency.  I have no idea why, or if this is common in all systems, but...if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
2. Upgrading my audio interface.  A factor I didn't think about were the drivers, and someone recommended the Babyface Pro (RME drivers).  This resulted in me being able to drop from ~12ms latency to ~2ms latency.  Guess those proprietary drivers are also magic :-)

I don't know where your audio interface sits on the power spectrum, but I'd consider that as well as you plan your upgrades so you don't get disappointed by a surprise bottleneck!

- Sam

First potential culprit:

Did you turn Velocity X-Fade on?  In the PERFORM tab, there's a little power button next to the slider for Velocity X-Fade.  

Second potential culprit:

If Velocity X-Fade is on, do you have it mapped to a CC that you're able to control?  Easy way to do this: right click on the slider for Velocity X-Fade, a frame will start blinking around it, then move the controller you want and it'll learn that CC.  Save your preset and you're good to go!  You can map a CC to the "power switch" as well if you want to toggle Vel X-Fade on/off mid-music.

I'm assuming, based on what you said, that LMMS allows you to select which CC is controlled in however it handles automation.  Simply match that CC to the one you've assigned to Vel X-Fade in Synchron Player and you should be good to go!

Third potential culprit:

What library are you using in the Synchron Player?  Not all patches have velocity layers, although *most* do.  The velocity cross-fading, if turned on and being controlled correctly, will be most noticeable with things like sustain articulations in woodwind and brass instruments (which add treble content considerably as they increase in volume).

Any of those help?

- Sam

A question for anyone who knows the answer,

Is Jitter a phenomenon that occurs exclusively when *recording* a signal, or does it also come into play during the *playback* and/or *rendering* of audio?  In other words: if I'm working exclusively with sample libraries, is it something to be concerned/aware of?  Apologies if this is an obvious thing, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it at the moment...

- Sam