# Reverb and ER's... should we care at all?



## OlavB (Aug 28, 2010)

When I listen to soundtracks, be it for movies or games, one thing always strikes me:
They ALL sound different.
One is recorded in trackdown, one in abbey road, fox, skywalker, and so on.

One thing they seem to have in common though: almost none of them drowns in reverb. In fact, 90% of them sound pretty pretty pretty preeeetty dry!
So, for realistic sound, shouldn't we take it easy on the verbs a bit?

Then ER's: listen to the Killzone 2 soundtrack by Joris de Man. The sections were recorded in place, but at different moments. (I.E. day one for strings, day two for brass, etc.) When brass comes in, they are not pushed way back behind the strings, actually they sound quite upfront.

Listen to Stargate by David Arnold. Does have a beautiful sense of air, yes, But no huge concerthall feeling.

Listen to certain Hans Zimmer OST's. He tends to keep things fairly dry too.

So why bother recreating a "perfect" soundstage/orchestral landscape in digital anyway?


----------



## bryla (Aug 28, 2010)

Yes we should care - but we shouldn't drown the music in reverb - so I don't understand


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Aug 28, 2010)

Pretty dry can be an illusion... Even with very short RT values, there can be a truckload of early reflections. Our brains process ERs in very subtle ways and the comb filtering that they add does not have to result in muddy effects at all. 
The HZ recordings that you mention are very very ambient (IMO), even without long reverb tails.

I am in favor of using the term Reverb mostly for the reverb tail. Early reflections are IMO more like time based filters. A reverb tail does not add position information, whereas ERs do.


----------



## OlavB (Aug 28, 2010)

What I mean is that apparently when whoever gets to decide says "push up the horns a bit" nobody seems to worry about "realism" at that point, and the endresult is all that counts. In other words: as long as you get the impact/sweetness/wow-factor, all is good, and "realism" doesn't seem to be of much importance.
(Don't get me wrong, I actually like that way of thinking more than striving for so called realism!)


----------



## OlavB (Aug 28, 2010)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> Pretty dry can be an illusion... Even with very short RT values, there can be a truckload of early reflections. Our brains process ERs in very subtle ways and the comb filtering that they add does not have to result in muddy effects at all.
> The HZ recordings that you mention are very very ambient (IMO), even without long reverb tails.
> 
> I am in favor of using the term Reverb mostly for the reverb tail. Early reflections are IMO more like time based filters. A reverb tail does not add position information, whereas ERs do.



Obviously ER's are very important. But even then, sometimes I listen to a piece and am (pleasantly!) surprised when the horns come in deadcentre. Apparently anything is possible! A snaredrum in the far right, answered by a second snaredrum far left? Great! 

I suppose I'm just coming to the point myself that searching for the perfect soundstage ITB is way less important than I thought it was, as long as it sounds good. Good = good afterall. There are no rights or wrongs. I learned that a long time ago when I was mastering at the then CBS Records. Producing/mixing orchestral music is pretty new turf for me, and this particular aspect seemed hard at first, but the more I listen to soundtracks, the less hard it's getting, cause everyone seems to be doing something else anyway :D


----------



## tslesicki (Aug 28, 2010)

> Obviously ER's are very important. But even then, sometimes I listen to a piece and am (pleasantly!) surprised when the horns come in deadcentre. Apparently anything is possible! A snaredrum in the far right, answered by a second snaredrum far left? Great!



I think there's nothing wrong about positioning instruments in non-standard positions. The only thing that matters is the final outcome. You can even write a song for twenty pianos and position them in various places and add some violins that will be playing from the basses position. Music is not about positioning, it's about melodies and emotions.


----------



## tslesicki (Aug 28, 2010)

Of course it doesn't mean that positioning is not important


----------



## OlavB (Aug 28, 2010)

tslesicki @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> > Obviously ER's are very important. But even then, sometimes I listen to a piece and am (pleasantly!) surprised when the horns come in deadcentre. Apparently anything is possible! A snaredrum in the far right, answered by a second snaredrum far left? Great!
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's nothing wrong about positioning instruments in non-standard positions. The only thing that matters is the final outcome. You can even write a song for twenty pianos and position them in various places and add some violins that will be playing from the basses position. Music is not about positioning, it's about melodies and emotions.



Exactly my point! :D


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 28, 2010)

Another interesting thing is that, for example, you can listen very often to brass instruments, mixed very pp but they are for sure recorded playing fff notes what you hear by the sound/tone. Same with all other instruments. o=<


----------



## OlavB (Aug 28, 2010)

germancomponist @ Sat Aug 28 said:


> Another interesting thing is that, for example, you can listen very often to brass instruments, mixed very pp but they are for sure recorded playing fff notes what you hear by the sound/tone. Same with all other instruments. o=<



Yep! I guess at some point we arrived at the sounddesign stage when mixing orchestral pieces for soundtracks. A long time ago actually. iLike.


----------



## MacQ (Aug 28, 2010)

I like the "what sounds good is good" approach. I'll wrangle whatever is necessary to achieve an inspiring sound. Is it "real"? No, but who cares? I've got compressors all over the place on all kinds of sections to keep dynamics under control, and I'll ride faders for the mix. My template at the moment doesn't even HAVE an IR reverb. 

I guess I mix orchestral music like I mix records, which is okay, since I'm basically writing pop tunes for orchestra anyway. Above all, melody is king. (At least for me!)

~Stu


----------



## Dan Mott (Aug 28, 2010)

As long as I understand what each control does on my reverb, I really do not care about the math. For me it's how it sounds. I may adjust the ERs up and down to see how it sounds. I might pull the reverb mix up all the way to get a better reference to where the instrument is sitting in the room, hense it makes adjustments easier, so when it comes to the mix, I can just raise the wet signal up untill I like it.

You do need an aim if you are going to take this approach though. I already know where I want my instruments to be in the space, so I adjust to what I want with the reverb up so It's obvious.

I use reverb for depth, such as many here. In actuall fact, from playing around with reverb lately, you can actually have a background instrument up louder in the mix than if it was dry because it will still sound like it's further away. The effect is my go to for making things far away. I really couldn''t care less about what is supposed to be done as far as being completely natural. I do not like convolution that much because I believe you cannot be as creative... well... you can, but not if you are going to take the most realistic approach which convolutions are just choosing certain real impulses, so there's only so much you can do. I like to have unique sounding reverbs that sounds interesting, rather that proper realism, and I don't know, that's just me. So I don't use a convolution so I can go nuts because sometimes I just get sick of the same place or places and it kind of sounds cool when it seems like each instrument is in a different dream world.

I wasn't using reverb often, but now I know it's essential for depth. I like my drums to stand out so I put literally nothing on them and others reverberated. People would think this isn't natural, but I like it because it sounds good. The drums are close, but everything else has it's space which makes even more depth for me.

For my strings, I usually have my tail to about 2 seconds because when it's sustaining, I cannot even hear the tail, so that's for sustained notes I suppose. Other than that I haven't found something I like yet on strings. 

Anyway I'm rambling in my own world. Peace.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Aug 28, 2010)

OlavB @ 2010-08-28 said:


> Then ER's: listen to the Killzone 2 soundtrack by Joris de Man. The sections were recorded in place, but at different moments. (I.E. day one for strings, day two for brass, etc.) When brass comes in, they are not pushed way back behind the strings, actually they sound quite upfront.


I know, what you mean, but keep in mind an orchestral stage is actually not that big. The instruments, which are behind, are not _that far_ behind.
And when I think of live-orchestras in concert-halls I often can't really locate some of the instruments while having the eyes closed.

Still ERs are very very important. They actually provide clarity and 3D-sound.
They might not be noted in some arrangements, but they are there.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 30, 2010)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... henge.html

For the Druid sound that the Celtic Women use for live performances.


----------



## Narval (Aug 30, 2010)

Interesting, so the druid women were using hanging stones plug-ins. Hmm, I always thought they were using the Sony Oxford Reverb. But maybe that was used only by the druid men, also called andruids.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Sep 9, 2010)

To get back to this discussion and do some teasing 

Samplicity (i.e. me, myself and I) will release a "Poor Man's MIR" for "stage positioning" in a few months from now, based solely on early reflections. It will include psycho-acoustic concepts from David Griesinger (who also works for Lexicon) for optimal localization.

The first POCs (proof of concepts) were positive and my first bare-bones VST is also already working 

The engine will use several early reflections IR's (8 at least) that will form the basis for several control parameters, like stage, size, color, density, etc.

The plugin (a VST for Mac and PC) will use proprietary data files ("libraries") that contain the IRs and my preset defaults. The first version will contain one library file, but I will release new libraries and provide updates for them.

The plugin will be optimized for ER-only convolution and will support multiple/many instances (with presets for orchestral groups and solo instruments). Because it will not use the common Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) and inverse FFT, but another approach, it may also be more accurate sonically, but for now this is hypothetical.

Cheers,

Peter


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 9, 2010)

Brilliant news Peter - looking forward to seeing this!


----------



## Justus (Sep 9, 2010)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> To get back to this discussion and do some teasing
> 
> Samplicity (i.e. me, myself and I) will release a "Poor Man's MIR" for "stage positioning" in a few months from now, based solely on early reflections. It will include psycho-acoustic concepts from David Griesinger (who also works for Lexicon) for optimal localization.
> 
> ...




Wow, Peter!
I've been waiting for this for a long time! (I cannot understand why nobody has made IRs of ERs, which place your dry instruments correctly on the stage.)

Will the IRs be recordings of a real hall/room?

Really looking forward to this!

Kindly,
Justus


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Sep 9, 2010)

Hi Frederick and Justus,

I will not use real space IRs, simply because I cannot make them myself. 

The sources will be:
- My current three IR libraries
- A space modeling tool that uses ray-tracing
- An ER generator

I am setting up a mixer template to find the optimal mixing from these sources and base my "libraries" on their contributions to the optimal effect per group/instrument.

Thanks for the thumbs up!

Peter


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Sep 9, 2010)

> - A space modeling tool that uses ray-tracing


Which one are you using?


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Sep 9, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> > - A space modeling tool that uses ray-tracing
> 
> 
> Which one are you using?



Hehe, some stuff should remain undisclosed


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Sep 9, 2010)

Ok, I can understand that.

Anyways .. I'm expecting something great. :wink:
I think with the right designed spaces you should be able to get actually better IRs as it would be possible to get with real recordings.
Even this small tool from Voxengo (Impulse Modeler) is already capable to produce some really high quality IRs (even though it's only a 2D-simulation).


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Sep 9, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Ok, I can understand that.
> 
> Anyways .. I'm expecting something great. :wink:
> I think with the right designed spaces you should be able to get actually better IRs as it would be possible to get with real recordings.
> Even this small tool from Voxengo (Impulse Modeler) is already capable to produce some really high quality IRs (even though it's only a 2D-simulation).



I will actually also use Impulse Modeler as one of my references. I have made some very good positioning IRs with it, but it is not professional auralization tool, so my ER IRs will be based on other sources.


----------



## poseur (Sep 9, 2010)

i'll do what i like, when assuring that i've done my best to server the film,
its intent & content, and the director's wishes for it.

sometimes, i'll have some parts "drowning" in reverbs,
while others remain fairly "dry", or "naturally" dry.
i often use ER's, or animated/modulated pre-delays, and tweak my reverbs with a s
much care as i play my instruments.

at other times, much will be wet.
and, other times, i'll look for elements of the arrangement to be bone-freaking-dry,
for effect.

iow:
i don't believe i need to pre-commit to some kind of "credo", in these regards,
broadly across all of my works for film;
i attempt to let the film (and the nature of the music's arrangement & orchestration) help me make these decisions.

i suspect that you will do what you like, too.

i don't believe that this can be approached as a consensual issue;
we're individuals, making individual choices for our variety of reasons.
wrongly, maybe,
i presume i'm being hired precisely for my ability to make these
kinds of personal, creative, musical & sonic decisions, in concert w/the needs of the director.

d


----------



## ScoringFilm (Dec 19, 2011)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ 9/9/2010 said:


> To get back to this discussion and do some teasing
> 
> Samplicity (i.e. me, myself and I) will release a "Poor Man's MIR" for "stage positioning" in a few months from now, based solely on early reflections. It will include psycho-acoustic concepts from David Griesinger (who also works for Lexicon) for optimal localization.
> 
> ...



A major bump here!

Peter; did this ever come to fruition?

Regards,

Justin


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Dec 19, 2011)

A lot of times we drown our sampled based music in reverb because they are samples and dont have much life in them. A live performance (even a poor one) usually trumps a well produced sample mock-up because the performance is superior.

A well recorded orchestral performance will always defeat a sample based work.

A sample performance sounds better with good amount of reverb because the fake legato transitions for example are masked by this.

In a live peformance, there is a certain energy in the room when musicians are playing - looking almost ahead of time while reading the music and a sense of being in an ensemble. This is impossible to recreate with samples. It probably doesnt even have anything to do with the quality of the samples - its the performance aspect of it. 

A well recorded live performance is also rehersed very well so the players have a sense of direction and they really bring something with them together to meet ONE vision - that of the composer.

In a sample based work, this is not possible as samples are recorded not keeping in mind one vision and the composers vision may not always match with the sample developers vision.

A mock-up is sort of a reconstruction of an event that has already taken place. 

Another big reason for having more reverb on certain tracks is the room you work in. Research clearly shows that if you are not in a acoustically transparent room, you are likely to keep adding reverb because the amount you added, you cant hear that in the first place.

If you are not in a pro facility, your sound will get washed up and mixed with the ER of the room and have all sorts of masking effects. This will sort of mask the reverb you have already put into your track. 

In a pro facility (like the ones Mr. Zimmer owns), you are hearing a very natural response, so you tend to add less reverb as a result because everything little detail can be heard. The tails can be heard with the modulation etc etc etc....

So, I feel these are the main reasons of more reverb present in up and coming composer works v/s less reverb being present in the recordings of Hollywood or other professionally recorded works.

And by Pro set ups - I really mean, a studio with no less than 14 feet of height at the start of sound proofing and at least 350 square feet in size to get a natural response. This is just the basic - there is a ton of other important stuff.

Finally, it also makes a HUGE difference that a pro engineer - a person other than yourself mixes your music. This gives the engineer an objective environment in which to execute the given material. Sometimes the composer's love will take an effect too far. 

I also feel, having another set of ears is a golden rule one should alway follow!


Regards,

Tanuj.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 19, 2011)

Well stated, Tanuj.


----------



## ScoringFilm (Dec 19, 2011)

Wow; that was some reply Tanuj. I was simply dragging this old thread up to see if Peter had got any further on his ER software!


----------



## SvK (Dec 19, 2011)

i am a huge proponent of ERs , but only for close mic'd libraries such as Vienna.

adding ERs to the Hollywood Brass library seems crazy to me.

I would never do it.

( im speaking solely to ERs not tails )

best,
SvK


----------



## Mahlon (Dec 19, 2011)

SvK @ Mon Dec 19 said:


> i am a huge proponent of ERs , but only for close mic'd libraries such as Vienna.
> 
> adding ERs to the Hollywood Brass library seems crazy to me.
> 
> ...



SvK,
If you need to place your HB Brass farther back in the sound field, how do you do it?

Mahlon


----------



## SvK (Dec 19, 2011)

Mahlon....

If its a pre-baked room on the samples... I don't.

best,
SvK


think about it. Here you have these awesome recordings made in the famous Cello Studios(that would be EW)....Shawn Murphy mixes the recordings with his golden ears....the room is BOOMING with sound.....and now I'm expected to cover the beginning of these sounds with early reflections to put them further back? hmmmm

In order for an ER to affect a sample to sound likes its further back in the room it needs to sit circa -4db to 0 db or even louder than the sample itself.

no thanx, that will seriously screw with those recordings. 

(adding tails is another story...since generally they aren't mixed in nearly as loud)


best,
SvK


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 19, 2011)

SvK @ Mon Dec 19 said:


> (adding tails is another story...since generally they aren't mixed in nearly as loud)
> 
> 
> best,
> SvK



+1

Absolutely! A great thing is to test it via the mute knob. Mixing it in a way, that you not notice the reverb as a reverb, but notice that you are something missing, when u click on the mute knob.... .


----------



## mikebarry (Dec 19, 2011)

Mike and I just spent Thursday mixing with the first call in town Dennis Sands. He used one reverb - a tail thats it. It's all in the recording in the eyes of the professional A list mixers. 90 percent is the room mics recording the rest is ducking and reaching. I guarantee people over think the reverb thing.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 19, 2011)

mikebarry @ Mon Dec 19 said:


> I guarantee people over think the reverb thing.



I totally agree.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 19, 2011)

mikebarry @ Mon Dec 19 said:


> Mike and I just spent Thursday mixing with the first call in town Dennis Sands. He used one reverb - a tail thats it. It's all in the recording in the eyes of the professional A list mixers. 90 percent is the room mics recording the rest is ducking and reaching. I guarantee people over think the reverb thing.



I agree. The mixers I've worked with on professional sessions and all the other professional sessions I've ever visited use 1 reverb tail. I was shocked when I came here and people here all talking about stage positions, early reflections, ect, ect.... I'm like isn't that what pan and send are for? Wasted waaaayyyyy too much time worry about that stuff. If your template is balanced right and things are well recorded then a little reverb to glue it all together and to create a space is all one needs.


----------



## SvK (Dec 19, 2011)

jose....

wait a minute...that was in regards to vienna which is close mic'd......and Vienna always intended for their library to be used that way ...that's why they tried t build a silent stage; that's why they were advertising MIR years before it came out; that's why they recorded their instruments the way they did: So they could move instruments around the stage with ER IRs.

So the endless long discussions we had on ERs and Verb were in fact important and productive with regards to close MIc'd libraries.

NONE of this applies to HSB, HS, CineBrass, Adagio, Spitfire


best,
SvK


----------



## Udo (Dec 19, 2011)

mikebarry @ Tue Dec 20 said:


> ...... the professional A list mixers .....


Ah, you mean the types that are so set in there ways, that they find it extremely difficult to adapt to newer and better approaches... :wink: There are exceptions, of course, and hopefully the one you mentioned is one of them.


----------



## mikebarry (Dec 19, 2011)

I don't know what you mean Udo. I am talking about the few people who are the giants of the industry - they probably know what they are talking about.


----------



## SvK (Dec 19, 2011)

Udo....

You are so right Beethoven, Miles Davis were so set in their ways...

they would have benefited from newer and better approaches

SvK


----------



## Udo (Dec 19, 2011)

mikebarry @ Tue Dec 20 said:


> I don't know what you mean Udo. I am talking about the few people who are the giants of the industry - they probably know what they are talking about.


It was a generic, tongue-in-cheek remark, not aimed at a particular person, but at the "holy cow" syndrome. :wink:


----------



## SvK (Dec 19, 2011)

Udo

Holy Cows do exist in Art, Production, Science etc.

best,
SvK


----------



## Udo (Dec 19, 2011)

SvK @ Tue Dec 20 said:


> Udo
> 
> Holy Cows do exist in Art, Production, Science etc.
> 
> ...


All I'm saying is that just because an A-lister is involved in or associated with something doesn't automatically make it good or very good (although the chance of that being the case is generally greater). E.g. there are examples of crappy compositions by famous composers (but people's awareness of those compositions fades with time).

EDIT: I'm referring to creative/artistic aspects rather than technical ones.


----------



## mikebarry (Dec 19, 2011)

Udo @ Mon Dec 19 said:


> SvK @ Tue Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Udo
> ...



Yes it does.


----------



## Udo (Dec 19, 2011)

mikebarry @ Tue Dec 20 said:


> Udo @ Mon Dec 19 said:
> 
> 
> > SvK @ Tue Dec 20 said:
> ...


I was referring to creative/artistic aspects rather than technical ones (and have now edited my original post to explicitly say so).


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 19, 2011)

mikebarry @ Tue Dec 20 said:


> Mike and I just spent Thursday mixing with the first call in town Dennis Sands. He used one reverb - a tail thats it. It's all in the recording in the eyes of the professional A list mixers. 90 percent is the room mics recording the rest is ducking and reaching. I guarantee people over think the reverb thing.



I agree too. BUT - in one important respect, Dennis has it easier than us! He doesn't have to mix a trumpet recorded in an anechoic room with a 12 horn ensemble recorded on the stage!

I've been bleating for ages to anyone who will listen (no-one) that reverb is over-thought. Listen to Star Wars IV. Then listen to How To Train Your Dragon. Then listen to Back To The Future. Then listen to Lost. They all sound totally different, and they all sound great. They were all recorded in great rooms... just different from each other. Star Wars IV is really startling actually, you're sat right in the middle of the orch!

Our big challenge is effectively to try to blend all these different recordings, and also stuff that is more challenging than that. Would that all our libraries be recorded on that glorious Sony stage. So ER becomes absolutely essential when working with VSL or Sample Modelling, I use it quite a lot for LASS too. But I don't touch ER for SO, Project Sam, CineBrass etc. Tails vary wildly too - I often don't use any either on the big room libraries like CB or Spitfire Small Strings.

So on the one hand I agree with the notion that reverb is over-thought. The endless search for the perfect space seems pretty unimportant to me. But we do need quite a few tools in the box to enable our libraries to blend - and that's a VI problem in general. And there, no doubt, the debate will go on... and on... and on...


----------



## José Herring (Dec 19, 2011)

Udo @ Mon Dec 19 said:


> SvK @ Tue Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Udo
> ...



Yeah, they could have hired me and probably done just as well. I'm sure Dennis Sands is just lucky. Right place, right time sort of thing..... :roll: 

Man....he didn't get to be an a-lister on his good looks. Have you heard is recordings? He's by far my favorite. He makes you feel like you're in the orchestra when you listen to his recordings.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 20, 2011)

Amazing what a cheap PC and a DAW with static VST's can do these days in the right hands.
I often wonder if they have an LCD and a plastic fader box sitting in a room for the client to see, then after they leave they run down the street to where a greeat A Booth full of hardware is......... /\~O


----------



## Daryl (Dec 20, 2011)

Mixing an orchestra recorded all together in a studio and mixing a load of individual sample performances, often recorded in different spaces, is not the same thing. However, if you do all the prep so that the virtual orchestra is panned, matched ambiences and sitting where you want them to be, there is no reason that they can't be mixed with a similar workflow. You just have to do way more prep than when the orchestra just plays what you have written.

D


----------



## mikebarry (Dec 20, 2011)

My point being: in productions where money is no issue. They rent a huge, proven space - there are only 3 left in LA now. The engineer sets his best (the 50's usually) mics up for the tree and that is 90 of the sound in post. The balances that exist on the stage exist in the mix. The rest of those mics are spot mics and surrounds. Its the tree that is the magic. The tree + the room. 

This is perhaps the most proven method of orchestral recording there is. The reason many sound different is because different stage, different time periods, different engineers. But the recipe stays the same since the tree came into being.


----------



## Mahlon (Dec 20, 2011)

Playing wiht ER times and impulses in Altiverb made a big difference, to me, in the effectiveness of placing VSL woodwinds' depth.

I do like tweaking, though, and Vienna Hybrid is a great one for tweaking.

Mahlon


----------



## Tino Danielzik (Jan 4, 2012)

I once listened to Jerry Goldsmith's "Forever Young" soundtrack, boy, that's some reverb a bit too much I would say. Then listen to Thomas Newman scores, beautiful sound, less ER's but a long warm tail. Or listen to Danny Elfman's Beetlejuice soundtrack, I don't think they used any reverb on that one. So many different sounds.

But you see, these are all complete recordings. They don't need reverb if they don't want it big. I would love to write my music just with soundstage sound, but I noticed I get a less realistic sound. 

Samples are dead Wave-Files. That's why phrases of trumpets, woodwinds or something else sounds better as a separate recorded patch. 

Most soundtracks sound to me more 2-Dimensional though, sample based music often sounds very 3-Dimensional and in your face. Like some of John Powell's music. 

One interesting fact is, the Lord Of The Rings scores were recorded at different places, in different rooms and even with different orchestras, did you guys hear any differences? I didn't. 

If I do a mock-up, I don't care about how it sounds, but if I have to write an entire score just with samples, I want the best result I can get. But I guess to get a perfect result for all kinds of arrangements and compositions, we need a complete new kind of software, something that's not sample based, something new entirely, but what could it be?  

For LASS I use Altiverb 7 Todd-AO IR's and one instance of QL Spaces to get a bigger sound.
I'm excited to see what Andrew K. from Audiobro will show us with his stage colors. Would be great to have this as a separate plug in for all kind of samples.  

Regards,
Tino


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 4, 2012)

Stage Colors is something I thought I wouldn;t like as it sounds static and boring like most Native effects that cannot be modulated in realtime.
But he actually seems to have used some deeper values than the useless 0-127 we often see our controllers emitting.
VAX77 has the finest MIDI resolution I have ever seen because it uses MIDI Spec 2 CC#88, which is 0-16000.
I am praying Andrew has done something along those lines, because unless I was daydreaming I saw a demo where the room size or mic location was being moved in realtime artifact free.
WHo knows, maybe there are people like me who think motion in music is crucial. Besides a Model 7 is very expensive and rarely are found on ebay, only one time and it was a friend of mine, and he didn;t even tell me....... :twisted: 
I think Andrews upcoming stuff will be fierce and just what the doctor ordered.
I have wanted something like this for decades.

John Lennon as you know was a pretty sick guy, but very talented and full of ideas. 45 years ago he heard a Leslie for the first time, and begged Martin to build a system that would allow the Leslie to swing in circles of the A Booth.
That's a forward thinking man there.
Moving mics or changing the space without all of those crappy artifacts is exactly what I want.

Samples are pretty sterile if you've ever performed with Quartets or 9 piece Horn bands, etc.
But they are as good as they are going to get from what I see. So the motion and modern modulation tricks can keep me happy until someone invents halographic instruments or some new fangled thang....


Happy New Year


----------



## Tino Danielzik (Jan 4, 2012)

I don't know anything about mics and how to use them, and I don't know anything about any old or new hardware stuff, I'm just sitting here in my little room and write music. And that's what I want, I don't want to confront myself with any mixing rules and ER's and IR's and whatever. Don't get me wrong, it is a fascinating field, but I just want to write the stuff that needs to be recorded. 

But it's funny that you mention John Lennon, he once said: "Once a thing's been done it's been done, so while this nostalgia -- I mean for the '60s and '70s, you know, looking backwards for inspiration, copying the past -- how's that rock 'n' roll?" Lennon says. "Do something of your own. Start something new, you know? Live your lives now. Know what I mean?"

Happy New Year to you too.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 5, 2012)

Tino Danielzik @ Thu Jan 05 said:


> I don't know anything about mics and how to use them, and I don't know anything about any old or new hardware stuff, I'm just sitting here in my little room and write music. And that's what I want, I don't want to confront myself with any mixing rules and ER's and IR's and whatever. Don't get me wrong, it is a fascinating field, but I just want to write the stuff that needs to be recorded.



Perhaps Guy Bacos as the right idea. His philosophy is simple - VSL. That's it. So you choose a solution that works for you (MIR I guess for VSL)

The reason we have to worry about it even if we don't want to is that the vast majority of us mix and match wildly, blending CineBrass with Sample Modelling which are both extremely good - but at at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. And all the while we mix and match such different libraries, we'll be grumpily mucking about with ERs and tails on every single product.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jan 5, 2012)

John Lennon was a sick guy? :?:


----------



## Daryl (Jan 5, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Jan 05 said:


> Perhaps Guy Bacos has the right idea. His philosophy is simple - VSL. That's it. So you choose a solution that works for you (MIR I guess for VSL)
> 
> The reason we have to worry about it even if we don't want to is that the vast majority of us mix and match wildly, blending CineBrass with Sample Modelling which are both extremely good - but at at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. And all the while we mix and match such different libraries, we'll be grumpily mucking about with ERs and tails on every single product.



I think that for me the performance is everything. I wouldn't even mind a totally dry (as long as it's not Samplemodeling dry) performance, as long as it is musical. The snag with this is that the drier the mix, the more detail you can hear, and that means composition and programming chops have to be top notch. For people on a stupid deadline, it is much easier to swamp the mix in a huge reverb to disguise the shortcomings.

Having said this, I'm glad that we seem to be moving to an era where drier samples seem to be more popular. To me it makes no sense (other than for one shot percussion samples) to record a solo instrument in an empty hall (and on the empty stage, which can be far more damaging), and then have to add reverb to glue the notes together.

D


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 5, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Jan 05 said:


> I think that for me the performance is everything. I wouldn't even mind a totally dry (as long as it's not Samplemodeling dry) performance, as long as it is musical. The snag with this is that the drier the mix, the more detail you can hear, and that means composition and programming chops have to be top notch. For people on a stupid deadline, it is much easier to swamp the mix in a huge reverb to disguise the shortcomings.
> 
> Having said this, I'm glad that we seem to be moving to an era where drier samples seem to be more popular. To me it makes no sense (other than for one shot percussion samples) to record a solo instrument in an empty hall (and on the empty stage, which can be far more damaging), and then have to add reverb to glue the notes together.
> 
> D



There's dry and dry - anechoic, VSL's Silent stage and Audiobro's LASS are all considered dry but are very very different - LASS is the sound of a scoring stage, but not a very ambient one. But my point really is - will you buy ONLY dry libs? Unless you do, you're still stuck having to match totally different recording approaches.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 5, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Jan 05 said:


> There's dry and dry - anechoic, VSL's Silent stage and Audiobro's LASS are all considered dry but are very very different - LASS is the sound of a scoring stage, but not a very ambient one. But my point really is - will you buy ONLY dry libs? Unless you do, you're still stuck having to match totally different recording approaches.


Simple answer; yes.....! I have yet to find any advantage (for me) in using a really ambient library.

I was working at Abbey Road Studio 2 just before Christmas, and the tail is quite short, but it has such a great sound that I could easily live without any reverb at all.

D


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 5, 2012)

I meant sick in a good way. It's a compliment. All underground cats hear tracks they like and say their sick, so it's rubbed off on me.
Never was the tea cup wine sipping kind of guy....
And I maintain that if the musical instruments we use, mostly sample based, lack the natural nuances we seek, these static recordings can be modulated and have motion added to them.
Static effects layer more static perception on top of static instruments.
Just my 2 Cents.


----------

