realistic sounding midi?

I’ve been playing around with different soft synths and don't really think any of them sound that realistic. Tried Garritan jazz & big band which sounds pretty good, but it's a bit of a hassle to setup. Also tried Kontakt but I don't understand what it does. What would be great is something to simply replace Microsoft GS Wavetable for midi out. Does anyone know of some good software synthesizers to do this?

If you want good sounding soft synths, plan on spending $300.00 and up, for each. Also good effect plugs, eq, verb, etc, makes a world of difference.

The key to good sounding brass midi tracks is the use of CC data. Breath controllers can really add to the realism as wind instrument parts are never very stagnant. They swell, hit hard and then come way down, bend up, bend down, slowly add vibrato and various other techniques. You just can't make a brass section sound real by playing block chords on a keyboard.

One trick I've used is to play one mono track at a time and not quantize it at all. Maybe even detune the parts slightly. It's the variation in players that makes it sound like a brass section.

I think the Soft Synths sound great, and the soundcard midi's sound like
toys.

ORIGINAL: jamesg1213

it's all in the editing of the MIDI, not necessarily in the sound itself.

Any good sources on how to edit MIDI for realism? I can find a bunch on how to do MIDI recording, but nothing yet on how to nuance MIDI into sounding real.

My advice is to back up for a minute and stop worrying about "realistic" sounding midi tracks and just focus on making "good" sounding tracks. You can spend a million dollars and endless amounts of frustration trying to achieve "realism" and you'll only ever be getting closer to an unattainable goal.

FWIW.

Cheers.

ORIGINAL: jamesg1213
...Unless of course you really need orchestral instruments in your track and have no other means of obtaining them...instead I looked for a subtle synth pad that would provide the same 'mood' as a string part. ...

To me, you just answered your own objection perfectly.

Let me put it another way: With the possible exception of drums and piano, I have never heard a synth or sampler that could do really realistic and convincing performances of acoustic instruments across the board. Now, before someone jumps all over me to listen to some demo or a piece they made that sounds realistic, let me redirect your attention to the *across the board* part.

That means that while some people have gotten some pieces of music to sound very realistic using only virtual instruments, I don't think anyone can honestly say that they could perform any part or play any composition and have it come out just like real instruments. The recurring theme with "realistic midi" questions (and they come up all the time) is, "I got this software and the demo sounds totally real (or I made a real-sounding string section for this one song) but all my other songs sound fake. How do I make them all sound as real?" And the answer is very often: Not everything is going to come out equally realistic.

"Realistic midi" is ALL about strategizing and compromising and thinking about how things are arranged and played and what kinds of things one sampler does well vs another and so on and so forth. Not every idea that would sound great with an orchestra can be rendered as convincingly as the carefully-crafted sales demo designed to cover up the shortcomings of the software. Not everyone who has a great idea for an orchestral piece has the compositional chops to pull off a realistic arrangement. So you end up with string swells that sound realistic but then the horn falls on its face or whatever, and anyone who's tried it knows that you can have 100 "real-sounding" instruments but one fake one wrecks the whole illusion.

My point is not to discourage anyone from doing what they want but instead to suggest that maybe realistic isn't all that necessary or desirable a goal. In certain cases it may be demanded by the client but I think most scenarios of midi realism frustration come from people who are simply asking their software to do too much.

There are some very large and expensive sample libraries and virtual instruments that CAN do staggering things in terms of realism these days, but working with them is still a compromise between doing what you envision musically and what the instrument is capable of delivering realistically.

It's kind of like using special effects in the movies-- sometimes they come out awesome, but usually there's at least SOME element of aesthetic compromise, and often they look totally fake. If you can figure out a way to do it without having to resort to special effects, you can usually save yourself a whole lot of self-doubt and second-guessing and technical headaches, and you'll often produce a more creative and satisfying product than something that tries to wow the audience with trickery.

Cheers.

How do we know he doesn't already have good sounding tracks? How do we know he's looking for ultra realistic sound across the board? His question was actually quite simple...he's looking for a more realistic sounding synth. Period.

With all due respect, everyone's jumping all over the place with assumptions and suggestions and not really answering his question. I know I hate it when people do that to me. I ask one little question, and while folks mean well, they end up frustrating the hell out of me with suggestions and advice that wasn't asked and had little reason to assume I needed in the first place. Like I said, I know you all mean well, but sometimes experts have a tendency to misread and get into a "preacher" mode about everything.

Shreaded_Teddy

I would consider soundfonts. They are archaic at this point, but I think they sound far more realistic if you get them from the right folks. You can get them for free on the net from people daring enough to make them. You'll just need a soft synth to place them, and I can't remember the name of the one I use - I'm at work. But it was free, I think.

You're complaining about people "preaching" while at the same time preaching against the way they respond to questions on a public forum. If someone's answer "frustrates the hell out of you" then don't read it. One of the reasons that most home studios produce records that don't sound as good as commercial records is because many home recordists are not as knowledgeable about production, recording, and processing as they are about playing their instrument(s).

No matter how well you lecture and break everything down, no one is going to record perfectly the first time in anything. So, let him ask when he gets to that point. I got this ALOT when I first started recording and asking questions and that's what I meant by it frustrated me. Everyone is thinking I'm looking to be an audio engineer, when all I asked is what's the best software sequencer. I'm getting 10 replies on how I need to understand that recording is an art and takes time to learn - when I never thought otherwise. So I get a ton of information I don't need, and very little of what I actually asked for...

I've watched you do this in several threads. You are very smart and knowledgable, and with it comes some egotistical qualities that you are either unaware of, or don't care that you possess. Smart and knowledgable people tend to ignore this when they feel their reputation is earned and should be tolerated due to their "value". They abandon the humiliatory nature of wise men.

I'm almost certainly alone on this point, but I'll stick by it. Your post was not in line with his question in the least. You made assumptions and marginalized his interest. He wants to know about realistic sounding synths...who cares why he wants them, that's his deal.

If you don't want there to be any answers more complicated than naming the next chord, then don't read any answers that have words. Simple.

That's not what I was saying in the least...not even in the same ball park. My point boils down to this: How about answer the question, instead of ASSUMING all of this peripheral crap? I mean, I can understand throwing these points in, hell I'd certainly want you to. But answer the damn question first. You didn't even answer him, you just launched into how he doesn't need to worry about it, about how his focus and interest should be somewhere else - good sound. WTF?

If you don't like my posts use the block button. Picking them apart for not providing opinions that you think I should have is just dumb.

No, I'm picking on you for being a judgmental jerk to people with a question. He didn't ask for your opinion on what he should give a **** about, he asked about a realistic soft synth. Get over yourself.

Don't go sour-pussing on him and make it OUR loss, pls.


Opps.. was I supposed to quote that... Na.. I would of said it myself anyway...

Can you please pass the salt. Needs garlic also.

Cj

ORIGINAL: ParanoiA
...He didn't ask for your opinion on what he should give a **** about, he asked about a realistic soft synth. Get over yourself...

And nobody asked your opinion on my reply at all, as far as I can see. But that didn't stop you from offering one when you felt you had something to contribute even though it was unasked-for.

I'm sorry you feel that your past questions were marginalized and that people were dismissive of your efforts. But that has nothing to do with me. I was 100% civil and on-topic and I think thoroughly respectful toward the original poster who was, after all, asking for help. I was also not responding to you or to anything you said or asked, I might add.

I have no idea who I'm talking to and make zero presumptions about their level of expertise or experience. When someone asks for or even discusses a topic that I think I might have something to add OR something to ask about, I say what I mean and what's on my mind as clearly as I can and make no effort to talk either down nor up to to people. On public forums I do this even if I have not been specifically asked and even if my response is only analagous or tangential to the original topic, if I in my own fallible judgement think that what I have to say might be interesting, helpful or entertaining.

Clearly you are of the opinion that I should limit my responses to directly answering questions within the terms that they were originally presented, and that to do otherwise is to presume that the original poster is ignorant. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. On a public forum I think the greatest benefit is the free and open exchange of ideas by people with different opinions, and I go out of my way to try and make my responses thorough so that even a rank beginner could follow along. You may see this as condescending, as though I am making the presumption that the original poster is the only person to whom my reply should be directed, and that any information I include is a direct and personal assesment by me of his abilities or understanding. This could not be further from the truth.

Frankly I think that your objections have more to do with your own hypersensitivity to real or imagined past slights and bad experiences than they have to do with anything I said or did. I see the role of a public forum as fundamentally different from what you are describing. I see it as a place like a bulletin board where people should be free to tack up anything on their mind and so long as it's even vaguely related, it's helpful and useful to see what different people have to say. Clearly that bothers you. Instead of trying to police what I post, I suggest you hit the little block icon under my post and you'll never have to see anything I post again.

paranoiA, If you dont like it, leave and dont come back jack, This is a public user forum. Its not here to please you and to live up to your standards. bye the way, besides from Chaz, Yep is one of the most helpfull and smartest roomies here and one of the ones that i most respect. So hit the road if you dont like what you read here and stop complaining about it.

Cj

I think that one thing you have to keep in mind is that realistic when listened to alone isn't necessarily the same thing as realistic within the context of the song. If you listen to a synthesized instrument all alone and really tear it apart looking for variations from the real thing, you can do it pretty easily. But within the context of the tune these lackings are often not necessarily all that apparent.

And, as mentioned I think, EQ, EQ, EQ. You can do an amazing amount to get a synth instrument up to the next level by correctly EQ'ing it to fit within the overall song. Also, with all of the processing that gets done on most instruments in most pop music anyway, the real instruments don't really sound like real instruments half the time probably. The difference is that when you are listening to a song and enjoying it, you aren't trying to tear it apart and decide if an instrument sounds really, really realistic. Your brain fills that in for you and you just enjoy the song.

Pretty dang realistic drums are doable these days, if you are willing to do the work to learn how. I use BFD, but there are various others in this genre that are widely used and give good results. There are specialized piano synths that are quite realistic. There was a recent thread on this where a number were used to spit otu the same tunes, so that they could be compared. If you do a search, it should come up and you can read through that. And there are other dedicated synths such as for Hammond B3 and whatnot, that probably provide the best solution for a given instrument. But it would be pretty expensive to get all those best of breed packages.