I wanted to catch up on other posts here before picking up this Tempo topic - But I need to jump in, now that Brundle's pointed out that your entry #30 is indeed faster, Dave.

It's a curious thing - As I collected the entries, I noticed that several different tempi were being used.  I checked both the .cwp file and the MIDI file to see if they were the same - trying to figure out why some entries were slower than others.

Then yours came in, Dave, and I could hear right away that it was faster.  It's not just an illusion caused by how you handled triplets.

Here - I did a screen shot to demonstrate.  The top track is my entry #2 which I know for certain is at the original file tempo of 112 BPM.  Below it, I've imported your entry #30, Dave - You can see yours ends sooner.  The two tracks get out of sync in the first few seconds.


The length of my entry is typical of those that sound like the right tempo - 1:09.  Yours is 1:04.  We trimmed the ending slightly differently, so it's difficult to say exactly what the difference in time is - doesn't matter, you can see yours ended up shorter.

I don't know what happened, if folks weren't changing the tempo in their project files.  I don't know why anyone would want to slow it down - but quite a few entries are noticeably slower than 112. - And this entry #30 is the fastest one, for sure.

It's a puzzlement.

Not changing the tempo was one of our rules/guidelines - But when all these different speeds started showing up in the entries, we had to toss that rule out - as we had to toss several out actually.

Anyway--there are the facts! 

Randy B.

bitflipper


I experienced some tempo surprises myself. It came down to whether you opened the .MID file with your DAW or opened a new project first and then imported the .MID file. In the latter case, you'll end up with whatever tempo the project was set to before importing the MIDI tracks and not what was in the .MID file.

Yeap! 
 
I've also experience this before, which is why I always open MIDI files by right-clicking it and selecting Open with...Sonar.
 
Works better that way.
 
 

I experienced some tempo surprises myself. It came down to whether you opened the .MID file with your DAW or opened a new project first and then imported the .MID file. In the latter case, you'll end up with whatever tempo the project was set to before importing the MIDI tracks and not what was in the .MID file.

Yes, I wondered if that might be the cause. If it wasn't publicized that the original tempo was 112BPM, you might not realize the imported clip took on the existing project tempo.

Bristol_Jonesey

I'd like to know what anyone liked (or disliked) about my entry.
I certainly didn't spend as much time as I normally would on a prject like this (work/holiday etc)

I'm also curious if anyone else was using EWQLSO Silver for their production.

Hey Colin "Bristol_Jonesey" I liked several things about your entry (#53).  I liked the brass and string instruments you selected- they sounded good to me.  The overall balance of your entry sounded nice too- but I would have boosted the trumpet a bit.  Sometimes the trumpet sounded a little distant to me.  On the opposite end of things, I think the snare drum was too up front for my taste.  But I liked the cymbals and timpani.
 
Thank you for sharing the notes about your workflow.  I may try some of those EQ tricks.
 
Nice job!
 
~Dan
#51 Miroslav, #66 Sonik Synth2

Jimbo 88


The really crazy Orch Mock-up guys will vary tempo all over the place.  Speeding up and making things louder is one of the oldest tricks to making one piece sound better than the next.  If people where not doing these things...well they ought to try 'em.

 
I normally do this, but it wasn't permited in this case.  The tempo was supposed to be kept the same all the way through.
 
 

Let me add my "congratulations" to first, the winners, and, second, to all those who participated.  Like others who have posted, I did not enter the shootout in the spirit of gainful competition, but as a chance to experience and evaluate other 'orchestral' sound libraries.  I got #48 because that was when I sent it in, amidst the time pressures of a modern life.
 
Okay, now -- glad I could entertain; think "Tijuana Taxi" meets Star Trek the original TV series for this one.  Thanks to Project Sam brass (a stock articulation) and Herb Albert's small orchestra for the inspiration.
 
Publicly, I want to again thank Dave and Randy for their efforts.
 
D. Carson

People have set various default tempi for their normal template, changing it from the default 120.  I bet these slow entries are 110 or thereabouts.  Other people probably have slightly faster than 112, the actual project tempo.  These folks imported rather than opened the MIDI file- That has to be it.  I don't think Chick made a conscious decision to up the tempo of his entry, since in his earlier reply he's saying he didn't purposely change it, and wasn't even aware it was the wrong tempo.

120/112  = 1.071 correlates well to my estimate that Chick's (#30) tempo was 7% fast.

rbowser


"... I didn't know some rules had been tossed out..."

It really wasn't a matter of David and I deciding, "OK, let's cut out this rule, and that one."
...
Randy B.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply your decisions were random, I just borrowed a phrase from your post #91

I'd still be interested in hearing whether anyone chose to change the original tempo deliberately as opposed to it just being an import vs. open thing, though.

Edit: I don't remember seeing anything about changing the tempo in anyone's notes, but then again I've only done one quick read-through so far.

-Susan

"You mentioned "bowing mistakes" - and I imagine most of us can hear what you mean.  In the B section where the strings take the lead, you used the aggressive "short bows" probably layered with the legato samples?--it does give a jarring, chugging effect which doesn't seem appropriate for that lyrical section.  I think maybe you used this string layer throughout, and the sharp attack was something you liked in the more martial parts of the piece, but then you realized later it would've been good to have done a key-switch for the string B section.  Do I have this basically right?"

You have it correct, Randy. I thought it sounded fine and got my head all into my rendition and didn't step back far enough (or long enough) to get the over all picture until I submitted the file. I would have preferred to do sostenuto with the B section Strings. I am experimenting with all the key-switch possibilities and just got enamored with the short up bows and down bows.

You also have the bass EQing thing right as well. I did not take the time to roll off the bass on any of the tracks that don't really need the bottom end as well as not carving notches in the frequency for each instruments range. That much work, I felt, defeated the purpose of seeing what the sample library could do on its own. That would have been many more hours of fussing over a 1 minute demonstration. Guess I figured wrong! 

Thanks for the comments and YES, I will frequent here more. I have been lurking and reading a lot over the past month or so and have enjoyed the comments and questions on many of the topics.

Rich936

Wow!  The last time I looked here a couple of days ago, there were 40+ comments.  It is going to take me days to catch up, but I have learned almost as much scanning through the the discussion posts as I did working on my entry.  I know that there have been some that put more weight on the earlier entries before the prize announcement, but in my case, I didn't even know there was a contest untill the Saturday morning before the Sunday deadline.  It was tricky (I had to squeeze a wedding and reception in as well) but I gave it my best shot, and about 3 gallons of coffee Saturday night.  I paid most attention to the brass, and having committed to using GPO (I had just bought it recently and hadn't used it in a project yet) Randy knows I've been pulling my hair out trying to get the attacks right.  Never happened, but I learned a lot about velocity and CC1 in GPO.  But as a result I didn't pay nearly enough attention to the strings or the piano.  And since confession is good for the soul, I over-reverbed my entry, but the fact is, I like it!  Thanks again all.  It was huge fun !

If one person's entries had gotten the votes to be in 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc place - Well yeah, guess he/she would've gotten all the prizes. -- And so---? Your question, with reference to the lottery meant to be some kind of parallel, seems to be focusing entirely on the Shootout as a contest.

As it was first presented it was a shootout of the various libraries for orchestra but when it became a contest and as pointed out fraud was attempted it became a very different thing. I fully understand how you and Bit look at this and I think as I have said it was an outstanding thing for you both to do. Yet it can't be as it was meant to be and still be a contest.

If it was meant simply to be a comparison of libraries it did not have to be done by the many. One person could have done it and released the results. Then we could have discussed that.

When first more then one person was enlisted and then prizes were offered it changed fundamentally. From the shootout to being a contest that was not clear as to what people were voting on. Was it skill in using a given library. Was it the sound of a given library.
What was being tested? How much could a entrant do to the MIDI? Because there were very few guidelines on this the results are in no way going to really answer the question posed by you at the start.

Add to the above that no guidelines were given for listening then we have a contest that is a popularity contest measuring very little.

I don't mean to be the one being so contrary. I don't want to take away anything from the work you did and Bit plus the ones that submitted entries; at the same time I see a lot of issues here that make it hard to come to any conclusion.   

In the end it it was a fun thing for all and that is very important.


Just to be very clear I do approve. I just think your goal was not met.    

Guitarpima



...I'm aware of the papery sound of the snare. They're all the same snares. It's just the type of heads and tuning that make the difference...

Hi, I didn't mean to over-explain something you already know, Guitarpima.  I was just pointing out why some voters may have held it against entries that used rock-style snares instead of orchestral ones.

Randy B.

Well, I can't speak to rich96's comment as regards this contest but I can say that he (or she) has heard many a cue from modern blockbuster movies he (or she) probably thought to be...sigh...a real orchestra that wasn't.  Just like many an ol feller an gal who think that they can instantly tell an emulated guitar/amp from the real deal and yet when push comes to shove in many a listening test and hit record  it's "oh, really?  that's the emulator?  well, never mind".

rbowser

...  Because my impression was so positive all the way through, as soon as something sounded a bit off, that off-moment stood out all the more in contrast.  And that moment was the tympani roll.

It sounds like you didn't "humanize" the Note On events on that tympani roll, or play with the velocity levels - so I think it's the one unnatural moment in your track.

GPO has such a good tympani, with each note given a right hand hit and left hand hit.  They have to be be played alternately to achieve the natural sound of a tympanist striking the drum.  In this MIDI file, every other note needed to be selected and shifted up 2 octaves to achieve that alternating pattern.  I don't think you did this?

All of the percussion needed special attention in this file - as has been discussed quite a bit on the contest thread.

Really good entry, Clark.  I wanted to share some observations about the work, and to let you know that I feel it's one of the stronger entries.

RB

Hi Randy,

Thanks for the feedback.  Yes, I felt that the tympani, snare, and bass drum rolls were the weak spot in my entry.  I probably should have worked on those first as they were (to me) the most difficult to get sounding right.  Unfortunately, by the time I got to that point, I was ready to be done and settled.  After submitting I also thought that I pulled a little too much low end out the EQ and it could have used a little more energy there.

Again, it has been an interesting exercise.  Thanks to you and Bit for putting this together.

Clark

As per Susan's request - I tried several times to get this to come out as the Word Doc table the original is, but I can't make the formatting stick.  Hopefully this will still help  - A program to identify the players.

ORCHESTRAL SHOOTOUT 8/19/10

Entry #
Submitter
Instrument software

1
David Townsend “Bitflipper”
Dim Pro

2
Randy Bowser “rbowser”
GPO

3 and 3b
Jonas Aras “jsaras”
Reason Orkester

4 and 4b
Dave Elson
SampleTank, True Piano, TTS-1

5
Jose Cabrera “Jose7822”
EWQL Gold Plus

6
Alan Stewart “guitarman”
MOTU Symphonic instrument, TTS-1

7
Bitflipper
TTS-1

8
Johannes Herheim
VSL with Dim Pro

9
John Gessner “john6528”
Miroslav with TTS-1

10
Randy Bowser
Concert and Marching Band with GPO
 
11
Ian Gibson “Twigman”
Reason 3 Orkester and factory piano

12
Thomas Robinson “rrmpub”
TTS-1, Dim Pro, True Piano, Percussion Strip

13
Chris Edwards
EWQLSO

14
Chris Edwards
EWQLSO with Hollywood Strings

15
Bitflipper
Yamaha MO8

16 and 16b
Gordon Runkle “RedShirtGuy”
Digital Sound Factory's Studio Orchestra with Dim Pro

17 and 17b
Jonas Aras
Synth1

18
Garry Kiosk “Kiosk”
GPO

19
Bitflipper
VSL in Kontakt

20
Michael Lizotte “LPMike75”
EWQL Gold

21 and 21b
Jonas Aras
TTS-1

22
Andrew Mayo “AJ”
GPO

23
Bitflipper
Miroslav

24
Johannes Herheim
Korg M1

25
Randy Bowser
Edirol Orchestra

26
Bitflipper
Kurzweil PCR2

27
Thomas A. Barnes
Garritan Pocket Orchestra with TSS-1

28
George Spelvin
Unison GM SoundFont

29
Thomas Robinson “rrmpub”
TSS-1

30
Dave Chic
EWQL Gold

31
Clark Engbrecht “Clarkeo”
GPO

32
Jonas Aras
GPO

33
Lorne Bitner “lorneyb2”
EWQL Platinum

34
Michael Lizotte “LPMike75”
EWQL Gold (a repeat of #20)

35
Mark Norwalk “markno999”
Kontakt 4 factory sounds

36
Gilles Schetagne “muzock”
Garritan Pocket Orchesetra, Battery 3, Kontakt 4 and True Piano

37
Jonas Aras
Miroslav Reason re-fill

38
Ian Gibson “Twigman”
ReFX Nexus

39
Lorne Bitner
EWQL Platinum, Storm Drums, Hollywood Strings, Gypsy

40
Lorne Bitner
EWQL Platinum (alone)

41
Peter Paolini “marafamusic”
Reason factory sounds

42
Richard Rayer “RichR”
GPO

43
Glyn Barnes
Kontakt factory sounds

44
Guy Rowland “noiseboy”
Symphobia, Hollywood Winds, EWQL Gold

45
Robert Bohman “guitarpima”
Dim Pro, Session Drummer 3, TTS-1

46
David Hepworth “bramwell”
GPO

47
Jonas Aras
Kontakt 3.5 factory sounds

48
D. Carson
Project SAM, Roland V-Synth GT, Sonic Implants, General EMU

49
Sheriton Swan
Roland JV1080 with Yamaha P80

50
Michael Miles “Michael135” at the Garritan Forum
EWQLSO Gold

51
Daniel Holden “attomikpunk”
Miroslav

52
Ver Nakao “Cae48790”
Prosonus Orchestral Collection with TTS-1

53
Colin Jones “Bristol_Jonesey”
EWQLSO Silver

54
Steve Cocchi “SteveC”
Dim Pro with TTS-1

55
Jonas Aras
Sound Factory's Emu Virtuoso2000 for Dim Pro

56
Lorne Bitner
Independence Pro

57
John Gessner “john6528”
Miroslav

58
David Hepworth
Omnisphere, True Piano, Edirol HQ-OR

59
Steve Dunn
Vienna Symphonic

60
Cliff Merry “Somerset”
Maschine, Dim Pro, TTS-1, Reason factory sounds, Orkester

61
Vlad Zakr
Wivi for iPhone with EWQLSO

62
Paul Theisen “ptheisen”
Garritan Pocket Orchestra

63
Paul Theisen
Garitan Pocket Orchestra with EWQL Starter

64
Tod Stillwell “T.S.”
Kontakt2 factory sounds, EWQL Gold and custom made sounds

65
Chuck Schlacter “crststring”
LA Scoring Strings, Project SAM Orchestral Brass, Project SAM True Strike, EWQL Gold

66
Daniel Holden
SonikSynth2

67
Johannes Herheim
Dream Station

68
Kevin Burrell “Kevo”
Dim Pro, TTS-1, Session Drummer 3

69
Dee Stringer “DeeS”
EWQLSO Gold

70
Lee Randall
Korg X5-DR

71
Gordon Runkle “RedShirtGuy”
Garritan Pocket Orchestra

72
Marv Kuehl “Galandar”
GPO