# Is CC#11 (expression) just volume?



## thevisi0nary

I feel like I should have asked this awhile ago, but I normally just use CC#1 to control dynamics and fader automation if I need to control volume. Is there any difference between CC#11 / expression vs Daw fader volume? If it is different is there an advantage to using CC#11?


----------



## Piano Pete

It depends on the library and the patch--please consult your respective user manuals, but I typically use cc7 as a rough balance, and then cc11 to fine tune everything.


----------



## gsilbers

thevisi0nary said:


> I feel like I should have asked this awhile ago, but I normally just use CC#1 to control dynamics and fader automation if I need to control volume. Is there any difference between CC#11 / expression vs Daw fader volume? If it is different is there an advantage to using CC#11?



as pete said, it depends on the library. some libraries will have a different set of samples which will sound or cross fade once you move cc11.
think a cello sustain note and you press it hard but have both cc1 and cc11 controllers down to zero or close to zero. that note you play will trigger a sample of a cello player playing that sustain note softly. some libraries will have the cc1 to turn up the volume of that note played softly. Then if you move cc11 it will fade up a different sample of that same note played by the cello player much harder and slowly they cross fade so you get the impression that the cellist started to played stronger. if you later turn cc1 down then you will listen to that note played hard (harsher tone) but at lower volume.


----------



## Tod

I think in the general sense of CC11, yes, it is a rather glorified name for volume. I think it gets it's name "Expression" because it's normally used along with volume (CC7) to add more control.

CC11 can be used for dynamics, as mentioned above, but normally CC1 is used for that. However, CC11, CC1, or any CC controller can be used in any way your want, until they are applied to a task or control, they are just am unused CC.


----------



## thevisi0nary

gsilbers said:


> as pete said, it depends on the library. some libraries will have a different set of samples which will sound or cross fade once you move cc11.
> think a cello sustain note and you press it hard but have both cc1 and cc11 controllers down to zero or close to zero. that note you play will trigger a sample of a cello player playing that sustain note softly. some libraries will have the cc1 to turn up the volume of that note played softly. Then if you move cc11 it will fade up a different sample of that same note played by the cello player much harder and slowly they cross fade so you get the impression that the cellist started to played stronger. if you later turn cc1 down then you will listen to that note played hard (harsher tone) but at lower volume.



Couldn't the same thing be achomplished using fader automation in the daw instead of CC#11? I'm talking in the cases where the sample library is using CC#1 for dynamics.


----------



## Piano Pete

Technically yes; however, there are usually crossfaded samples being triggered from cc11. As I am sure you know, a violin timbrally is different at piano than forte. With a decent library, this would be available to your pallete via cc11-- or wherever the developer decided to throw it. Otherwise, you could have a violin sounding like it is playing fortissimo when its amplitude is that of pianissimo. 

If everything is baked into cc1, and there is nothing on 11, you could use the channel strip to carve out your dynamic movement. If that makes sense to you and your libraries are setup this way, go for it. Just keep track of what cc lanes do what depending on the library and patch, and you should be fine.


----------



## d.healey

Piano Pete said:


> Technically yes; however, there are usually crossfaded samples being triggered from cc11.


Nope, depends on the library but the most common setup is to have dynamic layer crossfades controlled via CC1 (and usually there is also a volume curve in there too).

CC11 is usually assigned as a volume control, yes you can achieve the same thing with a fader, but CC11 exists so that you can control volume from an external controller such as an expression pedal (most of which default to CC11). Sometimes CC7 is also used as a master volume but it depends on the VI.


----------



## Piano Pete

That's why I said earlier that it depends on the library. For example, Hollywood Orchestra Diamond Strings has vibrato on cc1 and volume on cc11.


----------



## thevisi0nary

Got it, so unless otherwise specified, "Expression" is simply just volume.

It just occurred to me how odd it is that this is even a thing. Why would a sample developer even call this expression in the cases where it just controls volume?


----------



## NoamL

We're confusing things unnecessarily here. CC1 is the dynamics control (piano - mf - forte) on nearly all modern libraries. The Hollywood Series is an exception where they put it on CC11 instead but no other developers have followed their lead as far as I know.

CC11 is a volume controller that is made of MIDI information. The advantage of using CC11 instead of track automation is that CC11 is inherently part of your MIDI regions. That means if you need to move or copy your regions, the CC11 data will go with it. CC data is also channelized.


----------



## thevisi0nary

NoamL said:


> We're confusing things unnecessarily here. CC1 is the dynamics control (piano - mf - forte) on nearly all modern libraries. The Hollywood Series is an exception where they put it on CC11 instead but no other developers have followed their lead as far as I know.
> 
> CC11 is a volume controller that is made of MIDI information. The advantage of using CC11 instead of track automation is that CC11 is inherently part of your MIDI regions. That means if you need to move or copy your regions, the CC11 data will go with it. CC data is also channelized.



I have my daw set up to toggle automation envelopes to follow midi items, so I could just use that. I appreciate the distinction though.


----------



## dog1978




----------



## Rob

thevisi0nary said:


> Got it, so unless otherwise specified, "Expression" is simply just volume.
> 
> It just occurred to me how odd it is that this is even a thing. Why would a sample developer even call this expression in the cases where it just controls volume?


In my experience no, cc11 is not just volume. That’s cc7. Cc11 is there to provide more natural dynamics, by associating it to filters, or xfaded samples or any technique the developer chooses... Samplemodeling and Audiomodeling use it this way, for example, and cc1 for vibrato. This is also my preferred configuration in all the patches I program


----------



## thevisi0nary

Rob said:


> In my experience no, cc11 is not just volume. That’s cc7. Cc11 is there to provide more natural dynamics, by associating it to filters, or xfaded samples or any technique the developer chooses... Samplemodeling and Audiomodeling use it this way, for example, and cc1 for vibrato. This is also my preferred configuration in all the patches I program





dog1978 said:


>




Thank you very much. What midi keyboard are you using?


----------



## Rob

thevisi0nary said:


> Thank you very much. What midi keyboard are you using?



I use a yamaha digital piano, no wheels... and an akai usb ewi for cc11/1


----------



## thevisi0nary

Rob said:


> I use a yamaha digital piano, no wheels... and an akai usb ewi for cc11/1



I am sorry I think I double quoted lol, I meant the one in the video.

In reference to what you were saying before I am a little confused. Isn’t what you are referring to just dynamics? If the library I am using maps that to cc1 wouldn’t cc11 just be controlling volume?


----------



## zolhof

thevisi0nary said:


> I am sorry I think I double quoted lol, I meant the one in the video.



That’s the Korg Triton taktile.


----------



## thevisi0nary

zolhof said:


> That’s the Korg Triton taktile.


Damn they don't make a 61 key version =(.


----------



## Tod

I think the midi standard for CC11 is volume. Back in the 90s before VSTis, there were various keyboards and all the ones I had used, the default for CC11 was volume.

Now days that don't mean too much, although many VSTi instruments still use CC11 as a modulator for volume.

But as Rob points out, it can be used in any way a developer chooses. Most of the CCs can be used in any way a developer chooses.


----------



## thevisi0nary

Tod said:


> I think the midi standard for CC11 is volume. Back in the 90s before VSTis, there were various keyboards and all the ones I had used, the default for CC11 was volume.
> 
> Now days that don't mean too much, although many VSTi instruments still use CC11 as a modulator for volume.
> 
> But as Rob points out, it can be used in any way a developer chooses. Most of the CCs can be used in any way a developer chooses.



I know that CC mapping can vary between different libraries, I mean't in the situations where dynamics are mapped to CC1.


----------



## Count_Fuzzball

CC7 is for overall instrument volume, whereas CC11 "should" be for expression of the instrument (P - M - MF crossfading makes more sense for CC11). CC1 has just become the standard for Expression instead (easier for the end-user and I guess orchestral instruments don't *really* require LFO modulation of OSC/Filter/AMP).


----------



## Ethos

It's a MSB vs LSB thing (most significant bit, least significant but). Think of it this way: CC7 sets what the maximum volume of CC11 will be.


----------



## JonAdamich

For many VST's, yes, it's a volume control to create tighter edits. Though this is not universal.


----------



## Ethos

I thought CC11 and CC7 were standard MIDI CC's that always function that way, UNLESS a VST or hardware synth remaps it for some other purpose. No?


----------



## d.healey

Ethos said:


> I thought CC11 and CC7 were standard MIDI CC's that always function that way, UNLESS a VST or hardware synth remaps it for some other purpose. No?


There are no standards with VSTis (at least not that anyone sticks to). Developers do what they want. Generally they follow the hardware standard but alter things to make the instrument more playable - for example using CC1 for dynamics because most keyboards have a mod-wheel.


----------



## robgb

I've always wondered a bit about the use of CC11. I never touch it unless the instrument lacks CC1 dynamics and CC11 is the only way to get the samples moving at all, and in that case I'll usually remap to CC1 and add a little EQ automation to simulate dynamics. There are those who swear by CC11 as an addition to CC1 dynamics, but I've never really noticed the benefit. That may well make me an idiot, but so be it...


----------



## Bill the Lesser

Yes the Dynamics/Expression thing gets abused quite a bit by developers of thinly-sampled instruments interested in a feature-rich Kontakt panel.


----------



## Tod

Humm, 27 posts and a lot of various ideas on what CC11 is or should be. Maybe it's all based on how long individuals have been using midi. At any rate, it's interesting to read all these different view points.

One thing that I find confusing, not only in this thread, but generally across the forums, is the use of the word dynamics in a musical sense. In Kontakt when the mod wheel is used to Xfade between sample layers, to me that's dynamics, because it's not only increasing in volume, but also (hopefully) changing the timbre, and probably the aggression as well as . Of course you can tie a mod wheel to volume along with EQ for timbre and get dynamics, or even an ahd/ahdsr envelope for aggression.

I guess the part that is confusing me is that unless I know the poster, or have some reference implicating the context of what the poster is saying, I don't have a clue what the poster is talking about in reference to dynamics. I could surmise or guess, but so many times I've found that they're just talking about volume.

Regarding CC11, my main use of CC11 is volume. What I like about it is I can use CC7 to set an over all level (like 85), then use CC11 for the actual volume control. When I need more head room either way, up or down, I can simply adjust CC7.

My main use of the Mod Wheel is for what I call dynamics, Xfading between sample layers. I never use it for vibrato because vibrato needs two controllers for intensity and speed. Of course you can tie them together (intensity and speed) with one controller, but I prefer having both for more control.


----------



## Piano Pete

It all depends on the library or synth.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Even though I think everyone posting in this thread knows this, it's worth pointing out that every MIDI CC can be used for anything. The CC is just a status bit, and they can be interpreted - or converted to another one - any which way you want.

Of course the MIDI spec suggests you use, say, CC 1 for modulation and CC 64 for sustain on/off, but you can use either one to control an electric toothbrush if you want.


----------



## d.healey

Tod said:


> I guess the part that is confusing me is that unless I know the poster, or have some reference implicating the context of what the poster is saying,


Correct. Dynamics refers to a change in volume and timbre, created either by crossfading multiple samples played at different dynamics or using filters. Expression, as in CC11 is a sub-volume controller with CC7 being the master volume. However all of this is pretty irrelevant when talking about VSTis because the developer (and sometimes the user) can assign any CC to any parameter.


----------



## NoamL

robgb said:


> I've always wondered a bit about the use of CC11. I never touch it unless the instrument lacks CC1 dynamics and CC11 is the only way to get the samples moving at all, and in that case I'll usually remap to CC1 and add a little EQ automation to simulate dynamics. There are those who swear by CC11 as an addition to CC1 dynamics, but I've never really noticed the benefit. That may well make me an idiot, but so be it...



The real orchestra does not have a volume control. Thus when I see people manipulating CC1 and CC11 (dynamics and expression) side by side I'm not sure why they do that. This exaggerates the dynamic range by making dynamically soft samples (which are already soft _in volume_) even softer, and vice versa for high-dynamic samples.

Assuming that sample developers don't unnecessarily &*^% around with the volumes of their samples, there should be a set fader level for each library at which all libraries blend realistically and you can recreate real orchestrations without manipulating anything but dynamics. And generally, Eugene & I have found that to be the case in our mockups that very closely reference real recordings.

Increasing or lowering the volume by itself absolutely does not simulate dynamics because the timbre is unchanging.

I think sometimes people reach for the volume because the dynamic range of the library is limited?


----------



## Tod

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Of course the MIDI spec suggests you use, say, CC 1 for modulation and CC 64 for sustain on/off, but you can use either one to control an electric toothbrush if you want.



Ha ha, I don't suppose you've got a video of this Nick?


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau

NoamL said:


> The real orchestra does not have a volume control. Thus when I see people manipulating CC1 and CC11 (dynamics and expression) side by side I'm not sure why they do that. This exaggerates the dynamic range by making dynamically soft samples (which are already soft _in volume_) even softer, and vice versa for high-dynamic samples.
> 
> Assuming that sample developers don't unnecessarily &*^% around with the volumes of their samples, there should be a set fader level for each library at which all libraries blend realistically and you can recreate real orchestrations without manipulating anything but dynamics. And generally, Eugene & I have found that to be the case in our mockups that very closely reference real recordings.
> 
> Increasing or lowering the volume by itself absolutely does not simulate dynamics because the timbre is unchanging.
> 
> I think sometimes people reach for the volume because the dynamic range of the library is limited?


 Same here, I am relying almost exclusively on CC1 for my dynamics.

The only two cases where I’m using CC11 are :

1) When the dynamic range of a library is incomplete (if a note is still too loud with CC1 at 0, I’ll make a small fade out with CC11, from 127 to 100 or so)

2) To simulate divisi. If I have two voices playing together with an ensemble patch, I’ll set the CC11 to something like 115 instead of 127, to avoid a volume change. If there are 3 voices together, CC11 will drop to 110 or 105.

In both cases, these are small changes in values. Very easy to make things unrealistic with bigger changes !


----------



## JohnBMears

whitewasteland said:


> Same here, I am relying almost exclusively on CC1 for my dynamics.
> 
> The only two cases where I’m using CC11 are :
> 
> 1) When the dynamic range of a library is incomplete (if a note is still too loud with CC1 at 0, I’ll make a small fade out with CC11, from 127 to 100 or so)
> 
> 2) To simulate divisi. If I have two voices playing together with an ensemble patch, I’ll set the CC11 to something like 115 instead of 127, to avoid a volume change. If there are 3 voices together, CC11 will drop to 110 or 105.
> 
> In both cases, these are small changes in values. Very easy to make things unrealistic with bigger changes !





NoamL said:


> The real orchestra does not have a volume control. Thus when I see people manipulating CC1 and CC11 (dynamics and expression) side by side I'm not sure why they do that. This exaggerates the dynamic range by making dynamically soft samples (which are already soft _in volume_) even softer, and vice versa for high-dynamic samples.
> 
> Assuming that sample developers don't unnecessarily &*^% around with the volumes of their samples, there should be a set fader level for each library at which all libraries blend realistically and you can recreate real orchestrations without manipulating anything but dynamics. And generally, Eugene & I have found that to be the case in our mockups that very closely reference real recordings.
> 
> Increasing or lowering the volume by itself absolutely does not simulate dynamics because the timbre is unchanging.
> 
> I think sometimes people reach for the volume because the dynamic range of the library is limited?


---------------

I know one thing that confused me when I first started doing this 15 years ago was that some developers 'normalize' samples and some do not. That is my guess as to why you see some folks riding 2 faders (it's due to the library at hand at that moment). When I was planning a move from Hollywood Brass to CineBrass I was SHOCKED to learn the difference between the two. With an attempt to create consistency within the patches, some developers end up "ironing out" volume levels of their samples. And by volume levels I am referring to amplitude or loudness not timbral dynamics. 

When riding cc01 in CineBrass there is the slightest change in fader level even though it is getting timbrally VERY brassy. Therefore CineBrass themselves even recommends always riding volume automation alongside timbral crossfading. After hearing it echoed by other major players in 'mockup world' who also used normalized samples, it helped inform me of further library purchases. Not to knock the guys who do it, I still love CineBrass- but it did keep me from investing (so far) into CineStrings or other developers that heavily normalize their samples.


----------



## d.healey

JohnBMears said:


> I know one thing that confused me when I first started doing this 15 years ago was that some developers 'normalize' samples and some do not..


It's usually best to normalise samples when they are going to be dynamically crossfaded, this helps greatly with avoiding chorusing. A lot of developers however will add a volume curve linked to CC1 (or whatever CC is being used to crossfade the layers) so that the natural volume difference is retained. I usually add a second volume modulator linked to the key range of the instrument as some instruments (especially woodwinds) have a large difference in dynamic and volume in their different registers and this volume range can't be realistically recreated by an overall volume curve.


----------



## germancomponist

CC1 for dynamic range, CC11 for the volume. So, if u play pp samples you can raise it up with CC11. Very helpful when it comes to make your "sound".
Sure, you can also do it later on your mixer .... .


----------



## Tod

d.healey said:


> It's usually best to normalise samples when they are going to be dynamically crossfaded, this helps greatly with avoiding chorusing.



Exactly, some folks say never never normalize, but I've never had a problem. In fact if I have less the 16 layers I might normalize so that Velocity Intensity works properly. 



> A lot of developers however will add a volume curve linked to CC1 (or whatever CC is being used to crossfade the layers) so that the natural volume difference is retained.



Yikes, ha ha, never done that probably never will. 



> I usually add a second volume modulator linked to the key range of the instrument as some instruments (especially woodwinds) have a large difference in dynamic and volume in their different registers and this volume range can't be realistically recreated by an overall volume curve.



Thanks David, and would this be besides CC11?


----------



## Kony

Hans Zimmer posted on this subject here some time ago in another thread.



Rctec said:


> cc 7 = Volume (for balancing your tracks in a mixer against each other and setting up the proper gain structure)
> cc 11 = Expression in the amplitude domain only
> cc 1 = Modulation (used to be Vibrato on most synth) but now is really Frequency (Timbre) and Amplitude combined.
> But I cheat with my cc 11 and make notes impossibly quiet and loud. In other words, I use cc 11 as a 'human' compressor...


----------



## d.healey

Tod said:


> Thanks David, and would this be besides CC11?


Yes CC11 on top as a master volume (or sub-master if you also have CC7 as a master volume). Basically the same as Kony quoted from Rctec.


----------



## Tod

Yeah, that's how I use it to as mentioned above. Thanks


----------



## jaketanner

Rehashing an old thread as I come to my own realizations...I've been using MIDI within a DAW since it was first released, and to this day have never used CC11 because I assumed it was merely volume...until today that is.

So there is most definitely a difference between using CC7 and CC11...at least within the Synchron Player. CC11 is so damn smooth and musical, while CC7 seems very harsh and less forgiving...so there has to be some sort of resolution difference in the way it responds. 

Now the difference is NOT in the actual numbers, but within how it's used. Meaning that there is some difference in the coding of the master volume of a VST compared to the expression part...I know I hear a difference...I've done some a/b testing with a couple of VSTs...and basically the same thing. The master volume of an instrument is far harsher and the expression is much smoother.

I am hoping a developer would jump in here.


----------



## ReleaseCandidate

jaketanner said:


> So there is most definitely a difference between using CC7 and CC11...at least within the Synchron Player. CC11 is so damn smooth and musical, while CC7 seems very harsh and less forgiving...so there has to be some sort of resolution difference in the way it responds.



Yes, 'normally' CC7 sets the course volume (that's an MSB in MIDI speak) und CC11 allows finer control of the volume 'around' the value of CC7. 
Although the official specs say that CC39 is the fine control (LSB) for CC7, practically most(?) implementations use CC11 (as deafult).

Here's the MIDI paper, CCs at the last pages.








 An Intro to MIDI


What MIDI does, how to use it, how devices are connected, and more. pdf File Name: An Introduction to MIDI File Size: 2.1 mb Download File




www.midi.org





Official MIDI specs and stuff: https://www.midi.org/


----------



## jaketanner

ReleaseCandidate said:


> Yes, 'normally' CC7 sets the course volume (that's an MSB in MIDI speak) und CC11 allows finer control of the volume 'around' the value of CC7.
> Although the official specs say that CC39 is the fine control (LSB) for CC7, practically most(?) implementations use CC11 (as deafult).
> 
> Here's the MIDI paper, CCs at the last pages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Intro to MIDI
> 
> 
> What MIDI does, how to use it, how devices are connected, and more. pdf File Name: An Introduction to MIDI File Size: 2.1 mb Download File
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.midi.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Official MIDI specs and stuff: https://www.midi.org/


Awesome thank you. So I’m not just hearing things. Lol


----------



## reddognoyz

cc#11 is a "subset" of CC#7, volume. IF you have your cc#7 set at 110, cc#11 will go from 0% of cc7 at 110 to 100% of cc#7 at 110...if that makes sense


----------



## jaketanner

reddognoyz said:


> cc#11 is a "subset" of CC#7, volume. IF you have your cc#7 set at 110, cc#11 will go from 0% of cc7 at 110 to 100% of cc#7 at 110...if that makes sense


Both values being equal starting points of 127...I'll move the volume CC7 up and down during a string passage...then back to 127 and switch to CC11...same movements and there is a clear sonic difference. CC11 is much smoother and nicer compared to moving the volume...at least within VSL and BBCSO.,,but more noticeable within Synchron Player.


----------



## NoamL

Well, to reiterate from last time, there is no reason I can think of in normal operation to move CC7 on an instrument track. You can set and forget a CC7 tag for each instrument at the start of your template that balances the orchestra properly. Thereafter CC11 on individual MIDI regions can fade down specific instrument volumes when you need them to, like for example the tail end of a note.

If you want to raise your global music volume during a cue the best way to do that is to have a master music bus, or a VCA fader that controls all music stem buses.


----------



## jaketanner

NoamL said:


> Well, to reiterate from last time, there is no reason I can think of in normal operation to move CC7 on an instrument track. You can set and forget a CC7 tag for each instrument at the start of your template that balances the orchestra properly. Thereafter CC11 on individual MIDI regions can fade down specific instrument volumes when you need them to, like for example the tail end of a note.
> 
> If you want to raise your global music volume during a cue the best way to do that is to have a master music bus, or a VCA fader that controls all music stem buses.


Indeed..I think the point I was making mores was that there is a clear sonic difference between using CC11 and CC7 interchangeably. Personally, Ive always just used the dynamics of an instrument to control the volume, then automated it within my DAW if I needed further help...but I think I'm going to try and use CC11 along with dynamics...might make mixing in the end a bit easier.


----------



## NoamL

Track automation has created bad experiences for me because it makes conforming to picture harder.. at least in LogicX.... Like if you have to do it you have to do it, but using a MIDI message inside a MIDI region will travel & splice easier when you're conforming because it moves right along with the notes.


----------



## THW

Very helpful thread! For a beginner like me, I think I’m over using cc11 and cc7, messing up my balance and making things unnecessarily complicated. Then again, I’m using the cinesamples composers toolkit, and understand some instruments I should be utilizing cc11. These days I wonder if bbcso core might be easier for me to work with.


----------



## jaketanner

NoamL said:


> Track automation is a bad idea generally because it makes conforming to picture harder.. at least in LogicX.... Like if you have to do it you have to do it, but using a MIDI message inside a MIDI region will travel & splice easier when you're conforming because it moves right along with the notes.


Not sure I follow...Once the mix is done and stems are made, the automation is locked in...what's to conform?


----------



## jaketanner

THW said:


> Very helpful thread! For a beginner like me, I think I’m over using cc11 and cc7, messing up my balance and making things unnecessarily complicated. Then again, I’m using the cinesamples composers toolkit, and understand some instruments I should be utilizing cc11. These days I wonder if bbcso core might be easier for me to work with.


BBC Core is definitely easier...but more limited as a whole.


----------



## youngpokie

JohnBMears said:


> ...... some developers 'normalize' samples and some do not. That is my guess as to why you see some folks riding 2 faders
> 
> ..... With an attempt to create consistency within the patches, some developers end up "ironing out" volume levels of their samples. And by volume levels I am referring to amplitude or loudness not timbral dynamics.



and



d.healey said:


> It's usually best to normalise samples when they are going to be dynamically crossfaded, this helps greatly with avoiding chorusing. A lot of developers however will add a volume curve linked to CC1 (or whatever CC is being used to crossfade the layers) so that the natural volume difference is retained. I usually add a second volume modulator linked to the key range of the instrument as some instruments (especially woodwinds) have a large difference in dynamic and volume in their different registers and this volume range can't be realistically recreated by an overall volume curve.



If I am understanding this right, normalizing samples helps avoid chorusing but requires riding CC11 to re-create the lost volume differences. But on the other hand, riding CC11 to "fake" volume may sound less realistic for some instruments, like woodwinds.

If I got this right, what is the lesser of two evils? I would imagine the volume problem is less jarring especially if articulation/patch volume is manually balanced ....... no?

EDIT: I believe EWQLHO samples are not normalized and volume differences are preserved as the timbre changes. Curious if EWQLHO owners have problems with chorusing?? Many thanks!


----------



## d.healey

youngpokie said:


> If I am understanding this right, normalizing samples helps avoid chorusing but requires riding CC11 to re-create the lost volume differences.


Not quite. The "real" volume curve is reapplied in the sampler by the developer. As far as the end user is concerned it's business as usual and there is no need for them to do anything special to compensate for the normalisation as it's already been added into the modulator's internal curve.


----------



## dog1978

thevisi0nary said:


> Thank you very much. What midi keyboard are you using?


I use the Korg taktile.


----------



## FOTO M

Aha! ♡


----------



## rAC

I haven’t been able to refind the full MIDI 1 spec - I think it may now require registration to access. 
But from what I recall of it CC11 is defined as Expression and has both a volume and eq type effect again from memory I think the spec was for expressions max effect on volume to be +6 dB and it did something to eq as well - basically it was aimed at imitating the Hammond organs’ expression pedal. If anyone has access to the full MIDI spec I’d appreciate it if they could check and confirm/correct me.


----------



## rAC

I was wrong. This is an excerpt from a MIDI Org White paper.
Volume, Expression & Master Volume Response
•0 Volume (CC#7) and Expression (CC #11) should be implemented as follows:
For situations in which only CC# 7 is used (CC#11 is assumed “127”): 
L(dB) = 40 log (V/127) where V=CC#7 value
…
This follows the standard "A" and "K" potentiometer tapers. For situations in which both controllers are used:
L(dB)=40log(V/(127x127)) whereV=(volume x expression)
The following table denotes the interaction of volume and expression in determining amplitude … 

I think this may have been what I was thinking about (or else the spec said some else pre 1996 which would’ve been when I looked at it).


----------

