# The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS 2.0 vs full vs lite]



## noiseboyuk (Jan 1, 2012)

EDIT - Scroll down for LASS 2.0 version.

- Original post -

Well, hello 2012, and hello LASS 2.0. Ahead of the LASS 2 release, I thought I'd have some fun with a favourite piece of mine, the Stoic Theme from Thomas Newman's sublime The Shawshank Redemption. As a starting point - cos I'm lazy and it's New Year's Day - I've used a midi file arranged for piano which I found here - http://chuckmcknight.com/music.html, which sounded very good to me. I then tweeked and arranged this for orchestra.

So this will be the first of 2 or 3 versions that I intend to do, and for the strings this is done entirely with LASS Lite. The reverbs are the Impulse Responses that come with the library - ER and Tail. The EQ is my basic LASS template EQ. Other instruments - brass is Cinebrass Core, Harp and Timpani EWQL SO Gold, flute VSL SE. For the trems towards the end, I found layering the trem patches with the legatos was the smoothest - with LASS 2 (and, eventually for LASS Lite 2), there will be tremolo legato patches which I'm sure will help this section.

At this stage, I'm not really attempting to emulate the tone of the original recording, rather just to see what the strings sounded like with my defaults, and using only LASS reverb. Of course, the masterplan here is that next week I'll do a version using LASS 2.0 with full divisi and the Shaw's Redemption profile to hear what that does.

My thoughts, for what its worth, is that the strings sound pretty darn good for such a small and simple library - they sound quite real to me, although they don't sound like the original recording, obviously. The space is VERY different - indeed even the longest of the LASS impulse responses are quite short, and the recording space in the OST is very large. So I'm really excited to hear what LASS 2 will bring to the party.

Needless to say, the original will sound better than the final LASS 2 version I've no doubt, and of course sounds way better than this - comparing samples to live will always fall short. But I was pretty surprised with how passable even this version sounded... would have made an ok mockup for Frank Darabont I reckon!

LASS Lite - http://www.box.com/s/0ymidk2b70dbyhv4ood6

EDIT 2/1/12

LASS Full v 1.5 (with divisi) - http://www.box.com/s/n5rn7cvrqs27tgjf5lhv (details below in thread)

EDIT 8/1/12

LASS 2 and comparison versions uploaded - please scroll down for full post and explanation.


----------



## Resoded (Jan 1, 2012)

*Re: The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS lite]*

Very interesting! Looking forward to the LASS 2.0 version to compare with.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 1, 2012)

*Re: The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS lite]*

Very cool of you to do this, Guy! Sounds mean, in the best way. o/~


----------



## mikebarry (Jan 1, 2012)

*Re: The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS lite]*

I made a transcription in full score of that a few years back. 

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i155/ ... 3045PM.png


here is the first page


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 1, 2012)

*Re: The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS lite]*



mikebarry @ Sun Jan 01 said:


> I made a transcription in full score of that a few years back.
> 
> http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i155/ ... 3045PM.png
> 
> ...



Wow, cheers Mike - Piano, huh? Thought it was harp buried in there! And I coulda sworn the cello was an octave above the double bass. Ach, my ears...

Any which way, just love this cue. Must have played it a zillion times over the years.


----------



## mikebarry (Jan 1, 2012)

*Re: The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS lite]*

it is an octave above - contrabass sounding -8

idk about the piano really - ill ask dennis about it.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 1, 2012)

*Re: The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS lite]*



mikebarry @ Sun Jan 01 said:


> it is an octave above - contrabass sounding -8
> 
> idk about the piano really - ill ask dennis about it.



Oh gotya - that's what I have for the cello, so phew on that score at least. (you can probably tell I'm not the greatest sheet-music reader in the world for orchestral instruments... the shame....)

And omg I love that you can ask the man who recorded it! Was it the Sony stage? Just sounds wonderful, was marveling again at this morning.


----------



## David Story (Jan 1, 2012)

*Re: The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS lite]*

Thanks for doing this recording. It definitely is fine for a director who gets music. And it shows the strings, reverb and eq in a fresh light. Simple music can vary a lot in it's effect.(complex music either works or is a mess.) This version brings out the edgy side. LASS 2 and HS will probably sound pretty different...


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 2, 2012)

*Re: The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS lite]*

OK, so here's the second version. This is identical midi data to the LASS Lite version, the only change is that LASS Lite is now replaced by LASS Full (v1.5). This is using 3 divisis plus a first chair in each section. Reverbs are the same (both from the LASS IR library). EQ this time is the default LASS EQ. The level of the first chairs is considerably lower than the ensemble divisi.

Note that the orchestration is pretty simple - it's 98% one line per section, so there's no fancy AA or breaking down the parts within divisi here. I'll stick with this arrangement for now so it's easy to compare between the versions, but after the final LASS 2.0 version I might well revist the orchestration as it's not quite spot on at the moment.

Thanks for all the comments so far!

LASS Full 1.5 - http://www.box.com/s/n5rn7cvrqs27tgjf5lhv


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: The Shawshank Redemption - Stoic Theme [LASS full vs lite]*

Here goes... this is the first attempt at using LASS 2.0 for the Stoic Theme, and using the Shaw's Redemption profile. Basic instrument EQ turned off, Color 100%, Reverb approx 70% (from the same profile), still no AA or modification to any other midi data (beyond a very small moment in the middle on 2nd violins that was leaping out).

I'm kinda sorry this isn't a better first demo of LASS 2. I feel I need to stress that I think that Stage and Color is capable of MUCH better than this, but thought this was the obvious most useful starting point - the exact profile for this piece. And here it is:

http://www.box.com/s/h84mkxv1nqi6dmonmhz0

A casual listen to the OST reveals that, I'm afraid, this absolutely doesn't capture the tone of the recording. I've made a short A/B/C comparison piece - this does use a short section of the OST, so if anyone has any copyright concerns here I'll take it down immediately. It's here purely to provide context for this discussion.

What I've done is to take a short 10 second excerpt from the middle of the piece, and edited 3 versions together:

1 - LASS 2.0, Shaw's Redemption profile

2 - Original Soundtrack

3 - LASS 1.5, default EQ and LASS IR reverb

http://www.box.com/s/0h98i89rhr4l3bp9a6my

Now, any brutal comparison like this will find samples wanting, but I'm trying to focus purely on the tone and space. You'll hear immediately what I did... the air has completely vanished from the LASS 2 version - it sounds like it's off cassette with Dolby B. Indeed, 1.5 is tonally a better match, although it certainly lacks the sweetness of the original. The reverb is closer in 2.0 than 1.5 by a long way, but it's still obviously very different to the OST.

Now, I think there's much better to be had from Stage and Color. I'm going to do some more experiments and find what sounds to me closest to the original recording here - to keep the air and try to tame a little of the harsheness, and hopefully get a more lush reverb too. I'm hugely mindful this is Day One, and maybe I've done something wrong with the setup too... hopefully we can all help each other feel our way here with this exciting new product.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 8, 2012)

Sounds a bit strange to me having Celli + Basses dead center. >8o


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 8, 2012)

Blimey, this sounds 100x better to me:

http://www.box.com/s/e6h1e3jegfpa6qq7b4qk

So this is me forgetting everything I'm SUPPOSED to do, and just tweaking everything like crazy til it sounds right. Here - roughly - are the settings for this version:

All sections - Stage and Color - airy Strings. Wet aprrox 75%, Dry approx 65%, reverb 100% (except basses, wet and dry 75%, reverb 93%). Stage placement - turned off

Eq - approx 2db of lift to all sections at approx 15k. Basses 5db cut at approx 220hz, 4db boost at 50hz

To my ears, this is sooo much better, and much closer to the OST. It has the air back, though I've needed to dial in a fair amount of dry to really get it even on the airy profile. But - excitingly - it lacks that slightly harsh edge that the normal LASS sound can have. It's just sweetened it a little. Also the verb here sounds to me much more like the Shawshank OST - it's pretty huge, but it works in context.

I need to live with this for a while, play around a bit more, but I think I have the makings of a great template sound here. Also, just for this exercise I want to go back and revist some of the midi orchestration and CCs to make it as good as I can before getting on with my life!

(ps - I've now broken the arc... I can't move it off the Stage and Color page on any instance, even after a computer reboot. Ooops...)


----------



## Resoded (Jan 8, 2012)

Wow. The difference is huge and the 2.0-version sounds a LOT better. What surprises me though is to go to youtube and listen to the original and sure, it's not perfect, it's still samples, but damn that is real close to the sound.

I can't believe they got it this close.

It's driving me crazy that I had to go to bed last night before I could try it and that I have to study right now. Can't wait to play around with this.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 8, 2012)

Resoded @ Sun Jan 08 said:


> Wow. The difference is huge and the 2.0-version sounds a LOT better. What surprises me though is to go to youtube and listen to the original and sure, it's not perfect, it's still samples, but damn that is real close to the sound.
> 
> I can't believe they got it this close.
> 
> It's driving me crazy that I had to go to bed last night before I could try it and that I have to study right now. Can't wait to play around with this.



Out of interest, Erik, which version did you listen to? The Shaw profile or the Airy one?

(Am working on a final, final version sorting out all the duff orchestration I did in all the others... I was waaaay out with the 2nd violins in particular...)


----------



## Resoded (Jan 8, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ 8th January 2012 said:


> Resoded @ Sun Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. The difference is huge and the 2.0-version sounds a LOT better. What surprises me though is to go to youtube and listen to the original and sure, it's not perfect, it's still samples, but damn that is real close to the sound.
> ...



I listened to the airy one actually. I didn't realize you had two different. Maybe I'm hearing what I want to hear when it came to similarities with the original. 

Oh well, what's important is that it sounds fantastic!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 8, 2012)

Resoded @ Sun Jan 08 said:


> I listened to the airy one actually. I didn't realize you had two different. Maybe I'm hearing what I want to hear when it came to similarities with the original.
> 
> Oh well, what's important is that it sounds fantastic!



You've got the same ears as me! I don't know what's going on with that Shaw profile... I thought the idea was that it captured the tone of a recording, but it shaw hasn't (ha ha ha ha, see what I did there).

But it's exactly as you say... can it sound great? Oh yeah. It may not be the dream of a one-click instant fix, but those are mighty powerful tools, and LASS has never sounded better, which is the most important thing.

I am still concerned about the CPU hit, btw, and also the issue of the ARC freezing. Sonar was unusable due to extreme clicks, VE pro is much better but I am still getting them. I can see me dropping off the reverb and going with a separate plugin for that.


----------



## Ed (Jan 8, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sun Jan 08 said:


> Blimey, this sounds 100x better to me:
> 
> http://www.box.com/s/e6h1e3jegfpa6qq7b4qk
> 
> ...



Im confused as to why you had to do all that of that, I think the preset should sound like that by default.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 8, 2012)

Ed @ Sun Jan 08 said:


> Im confused as to why you had to do all that of that, I think the preset should sound like that by default.



Yes, me too!

OK, here is the sort of final version (until I change it again). This is the same profile as before - Airy with all the tweaks. All the changes here are to the orchestration, levels, controllers etc. There was quite a long wrong with the actual notes! Fixed now, this is pretty close - of course not identical, but it sounds pretty good to me.

http://www.box.com/s/v1ytmvchfphgc0fqepeh


----------



## quantum7 (Jan 8, 2012)

Thanks for sharing that! I absolutely LOVE that piece by Mr. Newman. Great job, Noiseboyuk!!!


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 8, 2012)

Nice piece and nice job. To my ears it needs 2-3 db in the mid highs !


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 8, 2012)

jamwerks @ Sun Jan 08 said:


> Nice piece and nice job. To my ears it needs 2-3 db in the mid highs !



Might have to experiment there tomorrow. The mid-highs are the LASS Danger Zone though... it's probably more forensic than anything I could do, it would probably need to be part of the profile itself. Still worth a try though, eh?

The more I think about it, the more I think something went wrong with the Shaw profile. I suspect there's greater profiles ahead of us, though I really do like Airy.

Sean - thanks! I love it too, must have played it a thousand times over the years. I know it's sad, but sometimes when I was tweaking a tiny bit, I'd just let it run on just cos I love it so much, despite hearing it over and over and over doing this, obviously. It's a classic variations piece I guess, a really simple motif that is always evolving and changing. I really loved working on that last pass, getting quite a few important details right, got a big smile every time something just clicked into place.

Damn talented bastard, that Newman fellow.


----------



## Ed (Jan 8, 2012)

You've done a good job guy, but its not really selling me on LASS 2 sound profiles. It should be plug and play, so unless you're doing something wrong, I feel like it doesnt seem to work properly. I dont have time or inclination to go do all that trouble tweaking things, I thought thats what this update was meant to negate.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 8, 2012)

Ed @ Sun Jan 08 said:


> You've done a good job guy, but its not really selling me on LASS 2 sound profiles. It should be plug and play, so unless you're doing something wrong, I feel like it doesnt seem to work properly. I dont have time or inclination to go do all that trouble tweaking things, I thought thats what this update was meant to negate.



Well there does seem to be a specific problem with Shaw. I haven't really A/B'd any of the others with what they are supposed to represent, but several get a great specific tone at a singe click.

It was very easy to set up that sound in my final version. Airy sounds pretty good out of the box... hmm, dial in a bit of original for a little more high... eq the top, tweek the bass. Dunno, took me about 5-10 mins tops, and now I can save that forever. I certainly haven't got a sound out of LASS full this good before.

Don't forget this v1.0 of v2 (as it were). The technology is amazing, and LASS 2 is powerful beast. I think better specific profiles will come. In particular, most of the profiles seem to be about cutting the highs - while that can often be a great sound, they do need more variations that are brighter, but not harsh. Airy is one, looking forward to a couple more!


----------



## Tino Danielzik (Jan 8, 2012)

You did a great job, orchestration sounds good to me. 

Love this song like many others. But your version sounds to me as if you used just solo instruments or too much of the First Chair from LASS. 

Otherwise I never expected that LASS could sound like a big Hollywood score. Therefor it's a too expressive sound and too close. It's perfect to simulate some other great scores, like The Bourne Trilogy by John Powell or some other scores by Thomas Newman. For a big sound like James Horner, Alan Silvestri or Jerry Goldsmith I would probably go to EW Hollywood Strings with multiple mics. 

But to get a bit more air and a wider sound it's good to add some of the Full Sections from LASS to some arrangements, like 1. Violins Full Section and so on... It gives you more room and thickness.

Regards,
Tino


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 8, 2012)

Guy,

I'm with Ed on not selling LASS with this. Quite frankly, I think a few could do a better job with EWQLSO Gold.

Also, having a copy of the original here, are you sure you ain't putting some extra stuff in that doesn't exist in the original?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 8, 2012)

Tino Danielzik @ Sun Jan 08 said:


> You did a great job, orchestration sounds good to me.
> 
> Love this song like many others. But your version sounds to me as if you used just solo instruments or too much of the First Chair from LASS.
> 
> ...



You can't layer a full section if you're also using the divisi - you'll get phasing, as the full is made up of a mix of the divisi.

In the final mix I did lean a little more on the FCs than I usually do, and I did in the earlier versions, especially with the cello and the violin. It seemed to me in the OST that the first chairs were quite dominant in that cue.

Ray - yes, I am comparing constantly with the OST which I've played literally hundreds of times. Sorry you didn't like it, but I think our tastes, um, differ.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jan 8, 2012)

I think it sound pretty close to the original when I A/B it. Most of the things I don't like in the example is also present in the original 

The biggest give-away here are the fast notes which work better and sound more pronounced/distinct than the mock-up. 

But good job I would say.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 9, 2012)

Christian Marcussen @ Mon Jan 09 said:


> I think it sound pretty close to the original when I A/B it.



Whaaaa? I guess you're talking about the actual sound of the strings? 'Cause the performance often sounds like a Frankenstein version of the original, taking it's first awkward steps. 

Not that I don't think it's a nice effort but, you know, mocking up a famous piece we all know is tough to pull off.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 9, 2012)

I should add though that 2.0 sounds way better than that LASS lite version which sounds sort of like sandpaper or something.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jan 9, 2012)

Exactly. The actual timbre and sound.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Mon Jan 09 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Mon Jan 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it sound pretty close to the original when I A/B it.
> ...



Ha!

I doubt there's a mockup of a specific classic performance on the internet that doesn't have that reaction really. All you can ever do is get kinda close, all those tiny nuances and subtleties are just out of contention. The ear is much more forgiving on original compositions, (or at least ones we don't know of course). I think this is the first time I've mocked up a specific well known piece (well, apart from 10s of HTTYD), and the reason I did it is that I knew LASS 2 was going to have a specific profile for the piece, and it seemed to me that the best way of evaluating that would be to, you know, hear it on the actual piece.

Considering how basic these tools are - the strings are just legato patches with a subtle trem layering towards the end for a coupla phrases, only ccs are 1 and 7, I think it's not half bad, but I would! Christian makes a valid point that the faster turns are harder to pull off - I'd agree.

So having got the midi to the point where I hope it isn't a total embarrassment - and all due apologies to those who think it is - at this point the tone is the more important issue here. The object of the exercise was to compare the various versions of LASS, and to see if those who don't like the normal LASS sound are convinced by the new Stage and Color technology. Reading the replies here and at Audiobro it looks like the jury is out. So far, no-one has leapt to the defense of the Shaw's Redemption profile. Over at Audiobro, Andrew has said I guess that there isn't a mistake in this profile, that it sounds closer to the tone of the recording that basic LASS, and I don't agree with that. So on the level of "can you press a button and have it sound like a particular recording", certainly my example suggests a big fat "NO", and I don't know of any other examples yet to demonstrate a "yes" - though they may come of course.

However, broadly (and with exceptions of course) people seem to like the tone in the 2nd example. I don't yet have a clear sense from people who don't like the raw LASS tone if its converted them. Ed's reply was interesting - it sounds nice, but he's put off by the work it took to get there (if I've paraphrased correctly - Ed, correct me if I haven't). If this is a general comment, and people aren't really fussed about cloning a specific recording tone, that's surely a v2.0 issue, and will improve in successive revisions of the profiles. I'm having a lengthy back and forth with Andrew and Sebastian about why the current set of profiles all knock out the highs (even Airy, though much more mildly) - what, I think, people want to hear is not brutally truncated HF, but stuff which still has plenty of air but lacks that edge that LASS can have, especially in the higher velocities. Edge does not equal HF. This is certainly what I'm looking for, and this feels like a big step forward to me.... but I love LASS already. I almost have a feeling that what people want is a magic Hollywood Strings button - that it can have that tone, but have everything else about it is LASS. Feels like it's heading that way to me, even if it might not be exactly there.


----------



## Arbee (Jan 9, 2012)

I'm going to do a plug here for someone I don't know - not sure if Peter Nickalls is on this forum or not.

This is the best I have ever heard LASS sound, and to my ears it sounds deliciious, and its LASS lite. If you can push a button to get this sound in LASS 2.0 then I'm sold  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3e7CIGWVPs


----------



## StrezovSampling (Jan 9, 2012)

Sounds good to me - yet the mix is too much to the left, I guess. I'd like more of those dynamics in the original - especially when the violins come "in". 

Cheers!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2012)

Srezov - yes, you're right re the panning. That's the basic LASS default stage positions (not the new Stage profile, mind) - I should probably tweak that at some stage.

Arbee - that's certainly a nice sound for Lite, but imho this Airy profile is in another league. I'm surprised there's not more demos up - I'm as keen as anyone to hear what other sounds people have come up with in LASS 2.


----------



## Ed (Jan 9, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Mon Jan 09 said:


> I should add though that 2.0 sounds way better than that LASS lite version which sounds sort of like sandpaper or something.



hehe, yea I agree. This update does make everything sound a lot better, its a great update and certainly made it more appealing to me... but I think as I said Guy shows here that it still needs work (unless he is doing something wrong). 

After all, if its meant to sound like the Shawshank recording, why does Guy have to do all this extra stuff to it? Surely you should just be able to click the preset and you're done. That's what I'd expect anyway.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 9, 2012)

The overall sound is better to my ears also.

As for these profiles, they might be hit or miss.

This piece Guy mocked up has lots of low end playing and maybe just didn't fit the profile.

It's great to be able to take advantage of Andrew's (& colleges) expertise with the profiles, but in some cases (such as this one?) might be better to change profiles or "make" our own.

Does anyone know what the profiles are made of? EQ for sure but maybe also some kind of transient designer and/or desser.


----------



## tls (Jan 9, 2012)

Thanks for sharing this!


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 9, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sun Jan 08 said:


> Ray - yes, I am comparing constantly with the OST which I've played literally hundreds of times. Sorry you didn't like it, but I think our tastes, um, differ.



I have no taste!.......... but if you're sure about having listened so often and so intently, you're fairly happy with the notes being played through your version well..................
I better get my ears tested because you've got notes playing that I'm just not hearing in the original. It'll be old age getting the better of me but you don't go worrying about me. I'm just grumpy. :?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2012)

rayinstirling @ Mon Jan 09 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Sun Jan 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Ray - yes, I am comparing constantly with the OST which I've played literally hundreds of times. Sorry you didn't like it, but I think our tastes, um, differ.
> ...



I'll be all ears if you can point any out, there may well be stuff I missed - but I'd need a specific place to look. I started with a basic piano midi file which was pretty good, but wrong in a few places. This last version (Airy v2) I hopefully caught those - lots of great stuff in the 2nd violins I'd got wrong in the earlier versions, dropped out the basses in that gentle mid section etc. Mike from CineSamples has a piano down in his score, but I don't hear one - I think it's a harp. Could very well be wrong of course!


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 9, 2012)

Arbee @ Mon Jan 09 said:


> This is the best I have ever heard LASS sound, and to my ears it sounds deliciious, and its LASS lite. If you can push a button to get this sound in LASS 2.0 then I'm sold
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3e7CIGWVPs



One thing I'm realizing is that mocking up well known pieces using samples is generally not a good idea if you wanna sell someone on a library.

LASS lite doesn't sound too bad there but doesn't sound great either. Certainly better than Guy's LASS lite which I'm hoping I can borrow next weekend -- there's some splintering on some of the door mouldings in my place and would love to smooth them out.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2012)

jamwerks @ Mon Jan 09 said:


> Does anyone know what the profiles are made of? EQ for sure but maybe also some kind of transient designer and/or desser.



Now, Andrew hasn't really spelled out the details, but my understanding is that it's like Match EQ - http://documentation.apple.com/en/logic ... tasks=true . I think all the Color part of the profile is, is EQ. However, the kind of EQing you can do with this sort of tool is totally different to anything a regular EQ can do, it's like having thousands of bands to tweak. So I think the idea is that that it captures the timbre of a recording by analysing it's harmonic content. It then looks at the content of what you're mapping to - in this case, LASS. It looks at the difference and works out what you need to make A sound like B. I think that's the idea, anyway - I've probably explained it badly.

Well, all that is the theory. As Ed said, unless I'm doing something wrong (and no-one else has come up with anything different), it isn't working right for Shawshank. It sounds plain wrong. I was half expecting an over-stressed Andrew K to say "whoa, hold on, I think we need to redo this one", but over at the LASS forums, he says that if you take out the separate stage positioning, and take off the reverb, tonally this profile is better match to the OST than raw LASS. If you listen to my short clip which directly compares 2.0 Shaw Profile / OST / 1.5 default EQ, I honestly think that 1.5 sounds closer than Shaw - http://www.box.com/s/0h98i89rhr4l3bp9a6my . So at the moment, it's a mystery. I don't know if my expectations were too high, or if there is something wrong with this particular profile.

It seems like you guys agree with me that my Airy version sounds closer, right? It wasn't a big deal to get that sound, and I think it's the best LASS Full sound I've come up with - so it IS a great tool, but it's not working as I'd expect yet.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 9, 2012)

I thinks it's mostly the stage thingy. I noticed on the video that the Stage collapses the stereo field in a wierd way making everything sound mono and muffling the high end.

Personal note. Can you do a version where you ease up on the modwheel? Bring it down a bit dynamic wise and ease up on the mod action.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 9, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Mon Jan 09 said:


> I'll be all ears if you can point any out, there may well be stuff I missed - but I'd need a specific place to look. I started with a basic piano midi file which was pretty good, but wrong in a few places. This last version (Airy v2) I hopefully caught those - lots of great stuff in the 2nd violins I'd got wrong in the earlier versions, dropped out the basses in that gentle mid section etc. Mike from CineSamples has a piano down in his score, but I don't hear one - I think it's a harp. Could very well be wrong of course!



The quiet bit after the horns (around 0:55)has piano on the downbeats but I haven't included it in my effort. I didn't know there was a midi file about for this so i just listened to the original cue.

You're having fun..............so am I.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2012)

Ray - that's the harp (I think) or piano (Cinesamples Mike thinks). There's something there in the OST for sure!

Jose - I usually get asked to ride cc1 more! I agree re the Stage, I'm not sure that's too successful yet. I find myself disabling it usually - it was out for my Airy versions, but was in for Shaw.

I might come back to do an ultimate ultimate version in another few days and look at the offcentre panning, dynamics again etc but I'm a bit burnt out on it for now! The main object was to compare the tone, see what LASS 2 could do, rather than create the greatest mockup ever. I know the original so well it had to reach a hopefully decent standard, but I'm acutely aware that seeking perfection is a foolish game... no-one will ultimately be impressed cos - like all mockups of great pieces - it'll always not sound as good as the original!


----------



## José Herring (Jan 9, 2012)

You just have to be careful when you ride cc. Sometimes it just jumps too much. Keeping it lower would help. That way when you push the cc up you're not accidentally hitting the harsher higher dynamic right away.

Another note. In the original recording, the players are playing in mostly the mp range. Then the whole recording was probably boosted during the mastering process for CD. So the levels are a tad artificial. But the timber suggest that the ensemble never got above mf in its highest peak and usually is in the piano to mezzo piano range.

José


----------



## Daniel James (Jan 10, 2012)

Nice work guy  I'm looking to do some experiments of my own soon too! Maybe a video  Need to get some money in first though.

Can't wait to get involved.

Dan


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 10, 2012)

Thanks Dan!



josejherring @ Tue Jan 10 said:


> You just have to be careful when you ride cc. Sometimes it just jumps too much. Keeping it lower would help. That way when you push the cc up you're not accidentally hitting the harsher higher dynamic right away.
> 
> Another note. In the original recording, the players are playing in mostly the mp range. Then the whole recording was probably boosted during the mastering process for CD. So the levels are a tad artificial. But the timber suggest that the ensemble never got above mf in its highest peak and usually is in the piano to mezzo piano range.
> 
> José



Interesting points, thanks Jose. Actually that is one function I wanted to test with LASS 2... can it be pushed more? I think I get up to about cc100 at its peak in the biggest swells, which is just into the danger zone, the majority is below 80. But when I do push it, I don't hear the same edginess in the Airy version - I think that tames it a helluva lot.

All that said, point taken that maybe the original do have them playing a little more p than I do.


----------



## adg21 (Jan 10, 2012)

Regarding the sound I am not sold on it I'm afraid, neither here or the youtube demonstration. But there might be more to see. I know a lot of time and work has gone into this (LASS 2), so I don't want to put it down, and it is a slight improvement in sound (perhaps more so in programming), but I can't help but think that time would have been better spent by Audiobro developing a new library altogether.


----------

