Michael135


I think once we get HollywoodBrass, things will change drastically.  If they make it anywhere near as nice as HS sounds (Which, IMO has nailed what live strings should sound like - yes, it sounds great with classical stuff too) , then I'm quite sure that very soon we'll have to really REALLY listen very hard to tell if it's a live performance or not. 

Also, I saw someone mention that GPO strings are more flexible than EWQLSO ones.  I don't think this is true.  There are a HUGE number of articulations to work with in SO, while the Garritan ones are more limited.  If anything, I would say that the Garritan strings are easier to work with and get good results than the SO ones.  I've heard truly amazing things done with SO, that I know can not be replicated by Garritan.  It's just a matter of knowing what your doing, and being prepared to do a LOT of work. 

As a side note, I don't think the Garritan strings sound bad, or that there's anything wrong with them.  SO sounds better, but the increase in quality of sounds comes with an increase of cost, and a significant decrease in ease of use.

 
I completely agree with you Michael.  And congrats on the win!
 
Take care!
 
 

Oh, one thing I forgot, regarding solo string instruments:

I could not afford to buy Gary G's Strad or Gofriller back when those libraries existed, but he did a fabulous job of rendering the string techniques on both of those instruments.

Had the same problem with Miroslav... the snare roll was too short and died out at the end. Worked about two hours on it then gave up.
John

Hmm... that very odd that a sample like that wouldn't be looped.  I can understand why some things aren't looped due to the nature of the sound, but I would find that highly inconvenient to have something like a drum roll just cut off (even more so for commonly used ones like snare).  Like the rolls in GPO for Snare (and timp), the rolls in SO are sustained for as long as you like, and controlled via the mod wheel.  It's so simple, and so... well.... perfect for what it's trying to replicate.  Working with samples that don't sustain would definitely put me off from buying a library.  I've heard from several other miroslav users who were very unhappy with certain aspects of the software.  You guys should just get EWQLSO, or if that's out of your price range, GPO.  I think you'll find them far easier to use, and easier to get good results out of.

noldar12


Randy, as always (well almost always <smile>) you make good points.

In terms of use of sample libraries, it really all depends on the sound one is after.  In my case, in the style(s) that I prefer to write in, I specifically am after a sound that will mirror the existing (common?) orchestral/chamber sounds.  Truthfully, that is not the landscape most people on this forum likely inhabit (nothing wrong with that).

Nonetheless, I can well understand that others prefer to be less traditional and go in different directions, and by not limiting oneself to the "traditional orchestral conventions" one has more freedom to exploit the strengths of various libraries.

tom1: you make a good observation.  I actually have sat in close proximity to orchestral brass sections (having been part of various bass sections back in the day).  I can hear that sound (side note: I knew of at least one woodwind player that, having to sit directly in front of various brass players, always wore ear plugs). 

But, when I listened to the demos, I simply was not that critical regarding the brass, as they were not my home instrument family, so that "sound" was not in my mind, whereas orchestral string sounds generally are.

<a bit off topic, but more detail about string libraries>

As for LASS, what it does is killer... the problem is all the things I can do with a bow that LASS does not.  In terms of technical articulations, I have found nothing that comes remotely close to VSL - though all I have are the SE libraries (like other libraries, VSL also has its own specific weaknesses). 

As for EWQL, articulations are too inconsistent from section to section, and the solo string instruments (again IMO) are borderline awful (the sound of the sections in general are generally good).  Obviously, in terms of sections, HS corrects the articulation inconsistencies, but HS is beyond what I can afford (LASS lite is tempting at times).

Interestingly, Kirk Hunter's various budget string libraries are often highly regarded, particularly for their aggressive attacks.  To me, OTOH, I could never use his strings - the attacks include so much bow noise that much of the time they sound like the playing of a very sloppy player still learning basic bowing technique.  Yet, as Randy woud likely comment, if one wants a somewhat less "real", but very aggressive sound, Kirk's strings would be wonderful.

<getting back on topic>

What does all of this mean for the contest Randy and Bit Flipper did such a great job on?

Some have indeed complained about how subjective the judging was.  In reality, the judging could be nothing but subjective.  All of us have different ideas and expectations about how the Star Trek Theme should sound.  A good case in point were the snares of #30.  Some thought they were great, others (including myself) felt otherwise. 

Does that make the snare choice "wrong"?  No, it simply means each of us had different expectations of how the piece should sound.  If everyone had the same expectations (and granted, roughly the same skill set would be required), we would have had 72 entries that would have sounded nearly identical.  The variety is what makes things interesting.  One need only think of the wide variety of interpretations on disc of a particular Beethoven symphony as one example.

Again, a great thread, and a great learning experience.

Hi, Jim- Great post. 

Here's something to add to what I said before -

A composition is one thing.  You want to write for a classical orchestra, and that's great.  The sound you're going to get, no matter how much money and time you throw at your projects which are recordings of your compositions - the sound is going to be something different from the way it would sound with a live orchestra.  And to me, that's not a problem.  It doesn't have to be thought of as "a mock up" or something that's second best - that recording will just be what it is - an electronically produced recording of your music, and it can be great as a thing unto itself. 

Later on, maybe you'll be fortunate enough to hear an orchestra play your music, and then your composition will be a different thing- Meanwhile, there's no need to tear our hair out over how our recordings don't sound the same as a live performance.  They don't have to.  They can be their own unique Things.  - That's at least part of my point. 

I'd like to see less stress over wanting our tracks to sound more "realistic" and more concern over our actual compositions.  And I'd like to see more enjoyment over what we Can do with the tools we have.

Randy B.

Randy, again, more good points.  Pulling hair out over trying to achieve a mythical realism is not wise (especially when one has as little hair as I do <smile>).

Actually, a majority of the pieces I have written - not that many in total - though a few are in the 15-20+ minute range - have been written for live performance, often for myself, my accompanist, and recently also for a violist that has joined us, or for various combinations of small - often folk related - church ensembles.

As for orchestral composition interests, one program that has really intrigued me of late is Vienna MIR, and now, fortunately, the just released MIR SE (cannot afford full MIR - either the program or the computer power required to run it well).  To date, that program, in the hands of a talented mixer (Jay Bacal/Guy Bacos), comes the closest I have yet heard to emulating concert hall orchestral sound.  Again, as stated above, I agree with you regarding samples/actual live sound.

My intent is to transition to the following workflow: compose in Finale (as always), to Sonar for full midi sequencing/editing, to working with the sequences using VSL SE instruments in MIR SE, and then recording the resulting two track master back in Sonar.

Only just now have I received my DAW back with some significant upgrades (i7 930, 12 gigs ram), and I am looking forward to seeing how things develop over the next few months. 

Side notes: even within MIR SE, an i7 9xx, and 12 gigs ram is the minimum viable spec.  Sonar is best kept on a separate computer, although that is not strictly necessary.  For those not familiar with MIR: MIR is designed to be a stand alone application, that receives midi data from a DAW/notation program/other outside source.  All instuments used in a composition must reside within MIR.

Interesting discussions about the different libraries.

I bought Kontakt 4 earlier this summer and thought that I also would get a good VSL library, but I was a little dissapointed.

The sound of the violins and violas were not to my taste.
The woodwinds sounds ok, and the brass a little better.
With some workarounds I think at last I`ve managed to get a decent library.

I belive the VSL SE sounds much better?

Best, JH

T.S.

That was done in Kontakt - I had to open the .cwp file just now to make sure, I couldn't remember.  I've kept Kontakt and use it in combination with Aria.  I make extensive use of the late-lamented Garritan Strad and Gofriller Cello - and those only work in Kontakt.  So I find myself having the two players side by side in a lot of projects.
 
It's been rare for me to do a pure JABB piece.  I usually pick and choose instruments, adding some from JABB to instruments in GPO and other libraries.  So, no, I don't really have a piece that demos the JABB brass prominently.

 
Okay Randy, thanks.  I guess I'll have to wait to see how Aria works.  I love Kontakt and have 99% of my libraries in it.  I'm really hopeing the brass will have that good big-band brass sound.
 
I mentioned I would like to try revisit some old bigband midi stuff I did years ago.  After digging around I managed to find an old piece I put together back in the late 80s or early 90s.  I think I used the first Cakewalk midi sequencer I'd gotten and probably mixed it down to 2-track tape.
 
All I had in those days was an old Korg M1, Krz K2000 (I think I had it then), some FBO1 boxes, and some kind of midi piano modual.
 
It started out to be a rendition of "Night In Tunisia" but ended up being something totally different so I called it "Beyond Tunisia".  I'm sorry, I don't upload many mp3s to the internet so you'll probably have to download this.
 
https://www.yousendit.com/download/UFVxQmtlZ2p0Ni92Wmc9PQ
 
T.S.

APPLAUSE for "Beyond Tunisia."  Tod, my wife and I started our morning by hearing your MP3 and we loved it.  Sounds great!  Really nice arrangement, good recording - The instruments sound super to me.  But it's an example of something you want to try out with newer synths, I think you're saying?  - It'd be really fun to try out your brass lines in this with JABB.  I can say that I think you'll find a Sax in JABB that will light you up more than the one used in this. 

Thanks for posting that.  Great fun!

Randy B.

Dave Chick - I read your back-from-vacation post again this morning.  Lots of good stuff you packed into it.  I'm really glad to see these kind of intelligent raps showing up on this Shootout thread.

Here's something- you said, "...You work on one of the string sections, get used to where the key-switches are and then move on to the next section to find that the articulations are either assigned to different notes, don't exist in this section or are replaced by something else..."

Yikes - maddening!  Keyswitches can be tricky enough to use, even when they stay put.  I use a 49 key controller, and even with shifting the octaves as high and as low as possible, I'll find that I still can't always reach the octave where some instruments have their keyswitches.  I have to rely on inserting those via the PRV, and that can be clumsy, made a bit more difficult by the way different programs assign the octaves with different numbers.

The string keyswitches in GPO are always the same, so you're not dealing with that crazy re-assigning you're talking about.  When you get to working with the basses, their keyswitches are an octave lower than the other strings--logically enough, since the bass range is an octave lower than the other strings, so there are playable notes in the octave where the other strings have keyswitches.

Thanks again for the juicy post.

Randy B.

I gotta bunch of random thoughts on this, sorry for the messy/long post:
 
I don't see what John said that offended so many people, he seemed very well-spoken and not at all overly critical.  But I guess I don't understand why we aren't allowed to critic some of the ways this contest was run, and even though I accept that it doesn't accomplish much at this point, I also can't agree with the people who immediately jump on anyone that says anything they deem to be the slightest bit negative.  I mean we're in a forum and we're here to discuss.  I didn't see anything in John's posts that would label them as "pointless and an embarrassment."
 
While the contest was being run it seemed to me like anytime anyone brought up a question or concern, the stock answer was "we discussed that and we decided this was the best way."  I had/have no problem with, but I still don't see why we can't discuss some of the rules and goals of this contest without being chastised for daring to criticize RB/Bit, who obviously, as we all agree, did an amazing job.
 
For what it's worth, I didn't think John came off as negative and I agreed with most of his points.  Guitarpima, on the other hand, lost me when using adjectives like "awful", especially to describe something as subjective as reverb.  It would have been just as easy to say "I thought the winning entry had too much reverb" than "I thought the winner's mix was awful."
 
Just my 2 cents.  Back to my own criticism:
 
To me, EQing the samples crosses the line as to what this project was suppose to accomplish.  I know it is a very grey area, and the EQing goes along with mixing and panning and is really not that different than adding reverb or mastering the final project.  Replacing a crappy MIDI snare roll with a sampled snare roll seems fine, but rolling bass off of the samples bothers me a little bit.  I can't really say exactly why, but it makes me think how am I suppose to know what this sample library is actually suppose to sound like if people are rolling bass off here and treble off there.  I know, it's a measure of the potential of the library, but still it just bothers me a little bit.
 
This goes back to what John was saying about once it became a contest, people may or may not have just wanted to put the absolute best (or multiple) product(s) out there, rather than showcase a given sample library, which I thought was the original intent.  Not that anyone on here would "cheat", per se, but who is to say that someone didn't slip in their favorite legato string patch from another library to sweeten the mix or use other techniques to make their MP3 sound the best but not necessarily feature the library.
 
If there was a next time, I would love to hear someone's interpretation of this file, made to sound as close to an orchestra as possible, using any and all means necessary aside from hiring a real orchestra.  I know that has nothing to do with this project, so consider it a tiny thread hijack.
 
I really like RB's theory that a mock up does not have to sound like a real orchestra because the composition will speak for itself.  I completely agree with that, but unfortunately it doesn't help me in my world (mid-to-low-budget television).  In my world the orchestral mock-up is suppose to be as plausible as as possible.  Thankfully we are routinely "helped" by the fact that the music is drowned out behind dialogue and FX.
 
Here's the hijack:
 
I'd be interested in hearing what people think are the "best" of each of the libraries used... and what kind of mockup could we get if we combined them?  I'm still going through all the MP3s and reading the notes and forming my own opinion.  But I'm not always a big fan of my own opinion.
 
For example, in my stock template I've more-or-less set up my favorites from the libaries I have:
 
EWSO - brass staccato, brass swells, tremelo strings, timpani
Sonic Implants - legato strings, marcato strings, spiccato strings, pizz strings
Prosonus Strings - string FX
LASS - fast repeated marcato passages
Sam Horns - legato horns
Advanced Orchestra - legato brass, xylo
Miroslav - solo woodwinds, tuba
Dan Dean - solo strings
Ivory - piano
Vienna - harp
Garritan - celeste, glockenspiel, percussion
Ultimate Orchestral Percussion - chimes, snare, cymbals
 
I'll often combine libraries as well... like for a big marcato passage I'll use 60% Sonic Implants, 20% EWSO, 20% LASS.  I'm not much of an orchestral guy though, which is why I'd be curious what other people are using.
 
Disclaimer: please don't be offended by anything in this post!  I love all of you!

Hi, Matt - Thanks for the very interesting post!  Working backwards through it:

 - To discuss MIDI orchestral projects is the main general topic of this thread.  I think your question accompanied by your template out is totally On Topic, not a hijack in the least.

My my, you have all those libraries!  Having none of those but GPO, I can't give you an informed reply.  But I do know that many people have said they haven't found better solo woodwinds than the ones in GPO.  Apparently you prefer the Miroslav woods.  Maybe you could describe what you feel are the attributes of those woods which make them better than the GPO woods?

And thanks for sharing your impression of John's posts on this thread.  I am sure you're not the only person who has a different impression than me of what his intentions were. 

I do need you to know that my objections to his posts have nothing to do with being offended that he "dared" to criticize us.  David and I are more critical of the Shootout than anyone.  We're very aware of things that could have been done differently, of the negative effect having to cancel the first poll had on the proceedings etc.  No, my objection to John's posts is I feel I accurately perceive them as being destructive, not constructive in their intent - and that they're all the more irritating because of his attempt to cloak them with good will.  I find his agenda obvious.  I'm sure John and I will be in engaged in good conversations again on other threads, just probably not on this one.

"...I would love to hear someone's interpretation of this file, made to sound as close to an orchestra as possible, using any and all means necessary aside from hiring a real orchestra..."

I don't quite understand that, Matt.  This is exactly what many of the entrants in this event already did ----.

"...who is to say that someone didn't...use other techniques to make their MP3 sound the best but not necessarily feature the library..."

I don't understand this either.  The only way to produce a recording using synths/samples, or any other sound source you can name, is to use to the best of your ability all tools available in your recording software.  EQ, for example, has to be used on a per-project basis, depending on how the layers of tracks are interacting.  To think that a demo of a library shouldn't involve production technique is incorrect.

"...rolling bass off of the samples bothers me a little bit.  I can't really say exactly why, but it makes me think how am I suppose to know what this sample library is actually suppose to sound like if people are rolling bass off here and treble off there..."

Something I've said from the beginning of the Shootout is that there's no such thing as a "pure demo."  Your quote I've pulled out here indicates you think that it's possible to just run a MIDI file through a library, and there you'd have a pure demo - But that overlooks the simple fact that in this Trek MIDI file, for instance, there's a preponderance of bass frequencies.  To not adjust the EQ to correct that pile up of bass frequencies is to do disservice to the samples being used. 

Thanks again for the interesting post, Matt.
RB

Here is an interesting article about the placement of the orchestras string sections: http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013234

It seems that when good old Beethoven made his music, the 1st violins were placed on the left side, and the 2nd violins on the right side of the conductor. Nice........

Best, JH

Matt
 
For example, in my stock template I've more-or-less set up my favorites from the libaries I have:
 
EWSO - brass staccato, brass swells, tremelo strings, timpani
Sonic Implants - legato strings, marcato strings, spiccato strings, pizz strings
Prosonus Strings - string FX
LASS - fast repeated marcato passages
Sam Horns - legato horns
Advanced Orchestra - legato brass, xylo
Miroslav - solo woodwinds, tuba
Dan Dean - solo strings
Ivory - piano
Vienna - harp
Garritan - celeste, glockenspiel, percussion
Ultimate Orchestral Percussion - chimes, snare, cymbals
 
I'll often combine libraries as well... like for a big marcato passage I'll use 60% Sonic Implants, 20% EWSO, 20% LASS.  I'm not much of an orchestral guy though, which is why I'd be curious what other people are using.
 
Disclaimer: please don't be offended by anything in this post!  I love all of you!

Holy libraries Matt!  I thought I went overboard with mine:

EWSO Gold
Sonic Implants Strings (lots of articulations and SFX)
Garritan Strings - Additional Techniques
London Orchestral Percussion
Virtuous Percussion and Harp
Garritan PO (Aria Engine) (usually only for percussion, celeste, harp)
Halion Symphonic Orchestra (usually only for woodwinds)

You, sir, are the winner with the most toys! ;)

tom1
 
64 GB of Ram? Sir, you are my new hero :)
Do you ever wish you just had a few more Gigs of Ram? :)

LOL - My thoughts exactly!

rbowser

When you have a chance, look into the Sonar project file for your Trek project.  It'll be interesting to see if you can resolve the tempo change mystery we were discussing earlier.

Randy and all,

Sigh, yes, the tempo was indeed the default 120bpm in the file.  Apologies as I honestly didn't realize it.  I adjusted the tempo to 112 and bounced out the result to post here for your own edification.

Apologies to all.

D

Michael135

I must say, while I REALLY love your strings, I strongly dislike how the brass sounds.  I think you might have used the muted samples perhaps?  The brass just sounds very synthy to me, somewhat forced, and not "brassy" enough.  Maybe you used mutes on your trumpets.  The origional recording of the piece did not have muted trumpets (if it did, they were not obvious), so I generally skipped right over anyone that had muted trumpets, or trumpets that sounded like they were muted when voting.

Thanks, yeah, barring the articulation headaches I talked about earlier, I really enjoy the strings in EW.  They are really well done - plus with the Gold edition, they're the closest to the mic tree, so they're not swimming in room ambience like the brass and percussion.

My entry was submitted before the creation of the contest, so I stuck to the "single library" philosophy that the "boys" were originally asking for - everything is EWSO Gold.

Nope, no mutes.  I think what you might be refering to is more of a use of the marccato and accented articulations than the legato ones.  I was a bit underwhelmed by the lack of forcefulness in the articulations - none of the brass seemed to be cutting through like I wanted them to - especially in the opening.  The legato articulations were too lyrical and staccato was too light IMO.  So, I compromised "proper" phrasing I would have liked to have had with brute-force accents.

Oh, since I spent probably 4+ hours working on my trumpets (on and off, not straight), I think it might be helpful to post them by them selves so that others can hear what I did with them better.  I know several people here used EWQLSO of some form, and I'm sure that at least some of them will find this useful. 

If you have questions about the articulations I used, and how I used them, feel free to ask!

For a short breakdown of the instruments (not articulations or midi tracks) I used:

1 Solo Trumpet track (all solo trumpet 1)
1 Trumpet section track  (comprised of a combination of the 2 trumpet, and 4 trumpet articulations)

http://soundcloud.com/mic.el-m-1/trek-tpts-example

Thanks - something's off with the link and Soundcloud's telling me it isn't there. 

I used the same instrument configuration - solo and then section - actually for all the brass (except tuba ;) ) .  The one thing that I DO admire about GPO that other libraries need to start incorporating is having the multiple players in brass and woodwinds available.  You not only get different characters in sound, but you also don't end up having more than the appropriate number of players sounding in your parts. 

I wasn't too nit-picky about this on this project, but the section brass and woodwinds samples end up being 2-3 players playing a single note in unison - when you start playing those samples in parts, for example in the trumpets, the sound you get is essentially nine players playing the parts that are supposed to be sounded by three.

Fantastic work you did on your track Michael - that solo trumpet really stands out nicely.  Did you boost the level of the solo trumpet to stand out?

Cheers!

Dave