# Sampled strings vs. live strings - still a difference?



## Hannes_F (Sep 8, 2010)

With the advent of the modern strings libraries (LA Scoring Strings, Cinematic Strings, Hollywood Strings) no doubt a new era of sample technology has been started. The older generation of strings libraries were not really bad (some names are Sonic Implants strings, QLSO strings, Peter Siedlaczek's String Essentials, VSL cube, VSL SE, VSL Appassionata strings), especially in the right hands. However the three new stars in the samples heaven shine brighter, and while there still seems to be a minor number of convincing user demos especially for Hollywood Strings the developer demos are very promising.

Obviously the newest demos are even so convincing that composers start to ask themselves



twinsinmind said:


> How many people here can really hear the difference between the demos being a mockup or being really played by an orchestra.



Some said yes, some said no. A very good answer (so I think) was



Guy Bacos said:


> An excellent virtual piece could be taken for a real orchestra, many good programmers have done that, and why not? Samples are great today. BUT when it's a real orchestra playing, you know it can only be a real orchestra doing that. There's a fine line if you follow me.



This was then replied in this thread http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... c58d74f673

in the following way:



noiseboyuk said:


> I dunno, guys. I think this argument is becoming academic for the very best libraries, on certain material. A straight A/B comparison, critically listening... maybe. Used in a show or a movie - imho I'd say not.



Here is my opinion, if you don't mind.

I don't think even with Hollywood Strings (as good as they are) the difference between sampled strings and live recordings is simply academic nor is it small. Maybe it is because when I hear something sampled I immediately have an imagination how it _could _sound with live strings (that is my training and function after all).

The A/B comparision of the sound is one point, the other is how the emotional load influences the listener unconsciously. I can only speak for myself ... as soon as I press record and get into the music my heart is pounding, the playing is physically and mentally exhausting, my body sweats, and basically it is a fiesta to be in the situation of recording these lines ... now transfer that to a real strings orchestra with 50 musicians and a dedicated conductor in front of them ... it would be very strange if nothing of that would find its way to the unconscious perception of the listener.

I had the pleasure to record a number of demo tracks for a young composer and next thing I heard is that he is signed for four (!) films. That is why I think samples are great and good and useful ... but composers should not think people (and producers) would not notice the difference. Maybe they did not even think "wow, that is a great strings sound". But obviously they thought "wow, that is a talented composer". Mission accomplished.

Are the new sampled strings better than the old ones? You bet. And I sincerely hope that TV programs will benefit by that advantage largely ... because to be honest, the years between 2005 and 2010 will probably not go into history as the era of the best sounding TV shows ever (I am talking about the overall average, not about something special).

On the other hand I think composers should _know _about what result to achieve with which tool and if the goal is not just 'to get away with it' but to move the hearts of your audience, make people watch the same movie again or keep their fingers off the remote control then there is, still, a significant difference between sampled strings and good live recordings. 

Feel free to discuss!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 8, 2010)

Wow, great OP!

I think I'm just a bit meat-and-potatoes with this issue. My point really is the effect in a final mix for either theatrical release or broadcast. With film / TV, I tend to only focus on the music (at least on a first watch) if something is wrong... if it is distracting me in some way (such as bad samples) or if the movie /show itself is boring and I need something else to thing about. I know that's a thread in and of itself, and I'm sure others here are different. But of course, the music is having a vital effect on the whole, even though I'm usually not consciously focusing on it. (slight tangent... I used the example in another thread somewhere of United 93, whose outstanding score I must have played now 100 times, but on a first watch at the cinema I came out unsure if there even WAS a score... in my book that's a huge compliment).

So I guess where I'm coming from is... a composition and recording as good as (say) Thomas J's HS demos would, in the very best way, pass me by in a good production. Honestly, if Shipwrecked were recorded by the finest musicians in the world, I probably would be no more-or-less struck by it IN A FINAL MIX, as compared to the HS version. As I said in the post on the other thread, there may be other pieces where this isn't the case, where the live-musician element is far more important to the whole - I guess typically these would be exposed within the production (no competing dialogue etc), and especially with featured solo instruments.

I know that must be heresy to some, but just my $0.02....


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 8, 2010)

As a guitarist its easy to pick out a sample guitar in the mix regardless of how good the samples are and how good the midi mock-up programming happens to be. I'm sure its the same with you as a violinist, violist and cellist. Even if there are 8-10 round robins, the cycle has to repeat sometime and when it does, you're hearing basically the same samples. Strings can be made to sound somewhat fluid but if you're used to the real deal, its a bit like having a nice snapshot of a Stradivarius versus having real one. 

I submit however what I hear as a guitarist listening to guitar samples may be different than what others hear who aren't guitarists. Probably the same with string players as well?

It seems to be that the reason for the birth of custom sample libraries of the past may be because back then commercially available sample libraries were limited to the artistic vision of the sample library developer who focused on specific articulations and playing styles while balancing economics and time. Trying to make strings go to pp when it was recorded mf to f was a challenge as was trying to get a different vibrato sounds based on different neck positions and the timbre quality those subtle changes allowed. Some of these exclusions have been addressed today but I've noticed that a real violin played well has a nearly infinite amount of textures, colors and sounds and when ported into a single performance adds the necessary fluidity custom to the piece itself - also considering when combining equally fluent talent, it seems to add to the overall magic if recorded well.

Some of the music libraries combine sampled and real strings. The real strings act as the sweet, fluid yet unpredictable element as each performance is being played in real time - as opposed to simply relying upon the playing back of samples (performance snapshots) glued together to form a composition - regardless of the quality of the samples themselves or how expertly the mock-up itself is executed. Sampled strings can add to sectional sizes and needed timbres in these cases.

But don't get me wrong - I completely support midi mock-up and the sample library phenomenon. Some of the mock-ups as of late have been fabulous. I believe that midi mock-up is a significant and technologically brilliant endeavor not to mention some really great music coming out of it. Add in an extensive understanding of arrangement and orchestration, its magic and hard to beat (especially, as someone pointed out, when you need a dual oboe part at 3 AM).


----------



## DouglasGibsonComposer (Sep 8, 2010)

For my own writing I find the "process" is equally as important as the "product."
What I mean is that even if the strings sound as convincing as the best orchestra, all too often I find that if something is slapped together it doesn't really grab me. I have heard numerous demos where they were done in say 3-4 hours, and the interest level of the music sounds like it. I just find that my most successful compositions (both for the mock ups and compositionally) have been when I know real players, and a real orchestra are going to be playing. It really makes me think about the details. Virtual or real players, I think nuance is crucial.


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 8, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Sampled strings vs. live strings - still a difference?



*YES*.


----------



## autopilot (Sep 8, 2010)

^^^^

And you only have to do your first string session to hear it.

But budget and time often don't let you be as great as you can be, so you do the next best thing - Samples. Commercial art is often about compromise. 

But there's still a difference. 

Thank god.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Sep 9, 2010)

RiffWraith @ Wed Sep 08 said:


> Hannes_F @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Sampled strings vs. live strings - still a difference?
> ...



+1. The difference is still vast - and long may that continue.


----------



## Danny_Owen (Sep 9, 2010)

since we're on the topic of real vs samples, how about samplemodelling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtvmcRKsHto

I mean, come on. That's pretty good.


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 9, 2010)

im just a home amateur but we go to concerts fairly regularly in london. ive listened here to quite a few string sections based on samples because i want some of them myself. but i dont know how many times people here go and see concerts. if you do that regularly there is no point in comparing the two.


----------



## Pietro (Sep 9, 2010)

Danny_Owen @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> since we're on the topic of real vs samples, how about samplemodelling:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtvmcRKsHto
> 
> I mean, come on. That's pretty good.



It's ok-ish, but absolutely not like the real thing. Especially if you could listen to it with sound straight from computrer, not recorded by webcam .

- Piotr


----------



## Markus S (Sep 9, 2010)

To my ears there still is a very audible difference between live strings and samples strings, no library comes close to the real thing for now. But the emulation got better that is true, especially the legato and repetition thing. I still have the impression it's the weakest sampled part of the orchestra, maybe because I play the violin. Often the strings are first to give away if an orchestra is sampled or not. Maybe it's because the section is so huge, and it is difficult to "resume" the sound of so many individual entities in one sample. No other instrument is so massively represented (except maybe the choir). Theoretically, you should use 14 (different) solo violins only for the first violins, to emulate the effect. On the other hand, it's not like there were solo strings that could replace the real thing either.

I thought - judging only from the demos - CS got the sound right somehow, LASS got the legato right, and I'm not too sure about HS yet, it's very interesting, but I need to hear more. VSL still seems to be a very good alternative, I wouldn't agree that it is outdated yet. Anyway, I'm very curious what the future will bring in that department.


----------



## autopilot (Sep 9, 2010)

The difference is when you get a section of string players you get a group of musicians who have spent their life making that instrument sound good, and play it tastefully with all that experience and knowledge - wheras we hacks with our samples just fake it best we can, having spent most of our lives dealing with software, other instruments, arranging, notation, engineering, producing and instrument emulation when we get the chance  

Or am I just speaking for myself ?


----------



## Narval (Sep 9, 2010)

The title-question is obviously rhetorical, but I'm not sure what you mean by "still." Are you suggesting that, in future, playing midi will sound like playing the physical instruments?


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 9, 2010)

Danny_Owen @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> since we're on the topic of real vs samples, how about samplemodelling:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtvmcRKsHto
> 
> I mean, come on. That's pretty good.



Not the best example of the SM stuff, and it doesn't help that the sound is coming through a cheap mic instead of direct, but there are some SM demos that I think would fool many musicians.

Samples are getting very good, but I think it's going to take things like the hybrid modeling approach and playing with breath controller to get that last bit of realism.

The real test would be to record the same thing with live players and do a midi version. In the vast majority of cases the difference is going to be obvious but I think there are a few possibilities where it's possible to fool people. One being certain things with instruments like the SM stuff, the other being things like certain percussion and pizz strings where the notes aren't connected into a phrase. As the technology improves, I suspect the amount of material that can be convincingly faked will keep going up.


----------



## David Story (Sep 9, 2010)

Live performers have infinite range of expression. Samples don't.
Yeah, you might fool people...but WHY?


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 9, 2010)

Samples may not have an infinite range of expression, but when you go beyond just sampling you can get pretty far. And while midi has limitations of 128 levels of resolution, that's also something that can be overcome in the future if it becomes too limiting.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 9, 2010)

tis a question I think we all ask, if only subconsciously... and here's my two cents:

Frederick hit the nail on the head, whether he meant to or not. I can pick out a sample based guitar, bass, mandolin, or steel part every time. That's not to suggest good or bad or any other judgment call other than "Appropriate". I still use a couple of the original EPS sampled guitar instruments from time to time exactly for the effect that they create. And I've certainly heard enough sampled guitar parts in everything from demos to game sound tracks to movie and TV soundtracks.

The trick is, I think, that I am much more apt to take notice if the use of the sampled guitar part is not (in my less than humble opinion) appropriate. If it is trying to sound like a human player, well, that seldom works for me.

I spent many years playing in a band with a 3 piece horn section, and not enough years playing in big bands, and thus I am also quite picky about sampled horns and especially saxes. But as I stopped playing any kind of brass instrument almost 30 years ago I have to depend on sample libraries most of the time, and it frustrates me. However, I have heard mockups of everything from 3 piece to big band horn charts, and they blow me away. So it can be done well, but it can not be done invisibly.

Which brings me around to the OP... strings. Once again I did spend many years playing bass in orchestras of varying size (and ability.) So I do know what a string section sounds like, and I can usually spot the sampled string sections. I have heard demos where I was dubious that they were really sample based until I spent the energy listening critically to catch the uniformity of the attacks, or the repeated samples, which eventually do become obvious.

And once again, I can't afford to hire an orchestra to record my pieces (yet<G>), so I have to do the best with the tools I have available to me, and the quality of those tools continues to improve dramatically.

For those that were around, who remembers the Kurzweil 250 demo cassette (yes, I said cassette!). That was an amazing piece of work. I have no idea how long they slaved over those demo pieces, but they were remarkable, and for those of us who weren't in line to by a Synclavier it as a real breakthrough!

Personally, it was the culmination of an idea I had chased from the days of the ARP 2600 and Korg MS-20. I always figured someday someone would figure out a way to make them sound more realistic. I was wrong about how, but I was right about the idea<G>!

There are quite a few folks here who can turn out a remarkable mock-up. I listen in awe, and then I return to the woodshed. These pieces are quite rewarding to listen to both artistically and critically. Would they sound different performed by a live orchestra? Yup! Better? That's a much more difficult call, and depends entirely on the ears of the listened.

There is something magical that happens when you put music in front of a bunch of musicians - whether it is a 90 piece orchestra or a power trio. There is an interaction between musicians that has not yet been replicated. Part of me hopes it never is<G>!

Now here's an odd thing, I think. The one instrument that has been sampled to the point where it just works for me is drums and percussion. Perfect? Not by a long stretch, but usable and convincing? Yes. At least for me I find the Toontrack libraries to be so authentic, and so "live" sounding that I have stopped worrying about where to put the drum kit! Well, not entirely true, I still value the input from a live drummer, they'll have ideas I'll never have. And with a little care you can still spot the sampled kit. But dang, they have gotten so close.

And lastly, a gripe. When I was much younger than today it was enough to show someone a sketch of a musical idea. It could be banging it out on a piano or guitar, it was enough. The people that made the business decisions could hear through the demo to the song/composition. I think that's largely a lost art these days.

The laziness or competition or whatever it is that drives the marketplace has made it necessary for someone to create a very polished demo. And as the ante is raised it becomes even more important.

About five years ago I wrote music for a production of "The Tempest". It was a community theatre company, and the director was my brother, with whom I've worked as lighting designer, sound designer, music director, and even composer. I played the themes as I envisioned them on my guitar in my living room and he signed off. Simple as that.

Fast forward four years and I agreed to be music director for a production of "Godspell." It turns out that the publisher has no issue with groups taking some artistic license with the original music, as long as the basic melody, and especially the lyric, remain unchanged. (unique in my experience, and pretty cool!)

All of the sudden this director with whom I've worked so often was unable to hear anything without a complete mock-up. I'd plink out an idea for an arrangement, in terms of tempo and feel, and he could not hear it. Was it that he had heard the original soundtrack one too many times? Or has he lost the ability to imagine? I don't know, but it created lots of challenges<G>! To the point where we did the show pretty much as written. Boring!!

On the plus side, the fact that this can afflict a director with whom I have worked so often makes it easier for me to accept that that same level of treatment is required pretty much across the board.

And don't get me wrong - even if I never played the mock-ups for others, I get tremendous satisfaction from hearing in my ears a close (and getting closer) approximation of what I hear in my head. I certainly would not want to be the one to slow the development of better libraries - except maybe for guitar<G>!


----------



## windshore (Sep 9, 2010)

Whether _we_ can hear the difference or not is one thing... whether young directors and young audiences do might be another. (-and then if they do, which do they prefer?)

Irrespective of what is best, the last decade in particular has been a time that has featured low-budget production music. Because it has lasted so long it has created a whole aesthetic of its own. Younger producers/ directors now often want that "aesthetic" and not the sound of a bunch of live players. 

Yes they may hear the difference, but they often want the virtual version. Maybe because it works with the bombastic percussion and scratch track that really drives the piece - but for whatever reason, more and more often I see that "live sounding" equals "dated" for many younger professionals in the entertainment biz.


----------



## poseur (Sep 9, 2010)

real strings make a tremendous difference to me, in my music or that of my friends which,
selfishly, i suppose,
is all i truly care about.

even if it's just real players, even if it's only one, mixed into the sampled instruments.

the wonderful irregularities of players making persistent & continuous, unquantisable tuning & expressive adjustments,
the sound of quality instruments with all their foibles,
the actual "air" around the sounds.....
the vast number of "organic" inconsistencies that simply occur in the material world,
the number of years of practise, skills & heart that can go into the playing:
that builds/supports the "art", for me, of extending "feeling", really.....

well, all that's never changed, for me.
i love that. 
still.

d


----------



## JohnG (Sep 9, 2010)

windshore @ 9th September 2010 said:


> more and more often I see that "live sounding" equals "dated" for many younger professionals in the entertainment biz.



+1


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 9, 2010)

poseur @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> ...with the best libs and a good composer, IN A FINAL MIX, would even any of us notice?



*YES*.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 9, 2010)

RiffWraith @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> poseur @ Fri Sep 10 said:
> 
> 
> > ...with the best libs and a good composer, IN A FINAL MIX, would even any of us notice?
> ...



*YES*


----------



## David Story (Sep 9, 2010)

There is a difference between live and sample based, that can be shown scientifically.
The physical sound is not the same.

But you can obscure that difference, following principles mentioned by Frederick, Peter, Mike and others:
Masking the sound in a big mix, writing to fit the library, effects, etc.

Why do people want to fool the public into thinking that a computer can sound like an orchestra? Does that make the world, or composing a better place? 

Hearing a rough of a score may be useful in the process, but why give that to the public?

Do we want to train producers and the audience to accept cheap imitations?

I notice and care a lot about live players. They are just as important as the composer and public to making music, imo.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 9, 2010)

David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> There is a difference between live and sample based, that can be shown scientifically.
> The physical sound is not the same.
> 
> But you can obscure that difference, following principles mentioned by Frederick, Peter, Mike and others:
> ...



While I agree with every word of this, I am afraid that to an extent that ship has sailed.

We have created a generation of producers, directors, and a listening public, and yes, sadly, even some composers who either don't know the difference, don't care about the difference, or both.

All guys like you and me can do is keep preaching the difference and when we get a budget that allows us to fight the trend, do so, as Michael Giacchino and J.J. Abrams have done.


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 9, 2010)

David Story @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> Why do people want to fool the public into thinking that a computer can sound like an orchestra? Does that make the world, or composing a better place?



When you say "people" - who are you referring to?

If you refer to musicians and composers, than I too have no idea why anyone would want to fool anyone else.

If you refer to producers, TV execs, etc., then the answer is simple as to why they would want to fool the public - or simply not care if they do: *$*

Cheers.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 9, 2010)

David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> There is a difference between live and sample based, that can be shown scientifically.
> The physical sound is not the same.



That depends on what is being sampled. With things like strings where many different samples have to be crossfaded and connected together with transitions, probably. With things like percussion, some things can sound exactly the same. After all, a sample of a cymbal crash IS a recording of a cymbal crash.



David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Why do people want to fool the public into thinking that a computer can sound like an orchestra? Does that make the world, or composing a better place?



Some composers aren't able to hire live players, for budget reasons or otherwise. When the assignment is to create an orchestral track and it has to be done with midi, then why wouldn't you want it to sound as much like live players as possible? It would be fantastic if I only had to use midi for demos and then recorded everything with live players, but that's not the case.

In the case of projects where the budget allows live players but midi is used anyway, I completely agree.

To me the question seems like asking why someone making a movie would do a special effect of the statue of liberty blowing up instead of building a full size replica and blowing that up. It comes down to budget (and in some situations, time). And if it were up to me, every project would be all live players. But it's not up to me.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 9, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Some composers aren't able to hire live players, for budget reasons or otherwise. When the assignment is to create an orchestral track and it has to be done with midi, then why wouldn't you want it to sound as much like live players as possible?.



Because that is not a _musical_ goal worthy of a composer IMHO. The goal should focus to make the track sound as musical as possible and frequently that may mean sacrificing the similarity to the sound of real players.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 9, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Because that is not a _musical_ goal worthy of a composer IMHO. The goal should focus to make the track sound as musical as possible and frequently that may mean sacrificing the similarity to the sound of real players.



Well obviously realism shouldn't come at the expense of other musical qualities. But everything else being equal, I'd say that in general having samples of real instruments sounding more like those real instruments is better than having them sound less like real instruments.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Sep 9, 2010)

David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Why do people want to fool the public into thinking that a computer can sound like an orchestra?



Budgets.

On average, 3% of the gross of a film budget is for music. It can swing up or down depending on budget size. 

But if a producer can get someone to write a film score for $0.00, which many are willing to do, than that's a budgetary, not an artistic reason. 

Craigslist offers scoring deals paying $3500 for the entire score - buyout. 

So let's be polite, why? Budgets. 

But if we're willing to be honest and drag it to the bottom line, it's about getting something for nothing.


----------



## Revson (Sep 9, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> ...make the track sound as musical as possible and frequently that may mean sacrificing the similarity to the sound of real players.


\
I'm having a hard time imagining an increase in emulation quality worsening musicality...do you have any listening examples that might illustrate your point?


----------



## David Story (Sep 9, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Because that is not a _musical_ goal worthy of a composer IMHO. The goal should focus to make the track sound as musical as possible and frequently that may mean sacrificing the similarity to the sound of real players.
> ...



I agree with Ashermusic. Musical goals are in our department.

I love mangeling audio, programing synths, making music from unlikely objects. That's fun, to me. You can score a lot of projects that way.

Having samples sound more like real instruments doesn't seem as fun. I feel like I'm cheating. I want fake strings to sound cool, serve a function in the mix, not replace live performance.



> But if we're willing to be honest and drag it to the bottom line, it's about getting something for nothing.



Among the most difficult gigs are ones where the producer's primary goal is to make money. They don't care much about the quality, and getting something for nothing is the aesthetic. 

Composers can enlighten their audience, and maintain professional standards. We don't have to eliminate live players to succeed. I am concerned that composers are making their lives harder by trying to replace live instruments with samples. I feel they can coexist to mutual benefit.

My favorite composers use live players no matter the budget.

Bernard Herrmann did a Twilight Zone with an orchestra of bass clarinet and celeste. Tight budget. Adding synths and samples, that could still work today.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 9, 2010)

Revson @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > ...make the track sound as musical as possible and frequently that may mean sacrificing the similarity to the sound of real players.
> ...



No, I do not post listening examples because frankly I believe that a lot of folks here listen with an agenda. But I tell you a couple of frequent choices I make that may illustrate the point.

Sometimes i double sampled celli with an analog synth patch. The end result is less of "an increase in emulation quality" but to my ears more musical sounding.

Also, I still frequently use some older samples like the old Miroslav woodwinds. I doubt anyone here would say that the VSL ones i.e. do not sound more "real" but I find these to my ears to help create a more musical result. So from my taste in that example choosing the ones that have "an increase in emulation quality" would indeed make the end result worse.


----------



## re-peat (Sep 9, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> After all, a sample of a cymbal crash IS a recording of a cymbal crash.


True, but that's only half the story. Well, not even that. A cymbal crash recorded in isolation is an entirely different animal than a cymbal crash that is part of a tutti. A horn, recorded in isolation and blended with a flute, also recorded in isolation, produces a to-tal-ly different sound than what you get when those two instruments are performing and recorded together. And the same goes for the entire orchestra and for every possible combination of its components.
Things resonate with one another. Frequencies get enhanced, others get cancelled, sounds bounce of other sounds, miniscule differences in tuning cause strange fluctuations, everything is alive and gloriously unstable ... and all this incredibly complex and organic activity creates many additional layers of sonic richness that are still FAR beyond the capabilities of stacked sampled instruments, even the very best ones. There is, in my opinion, only one library at the moment that offers us a glint-in-the-milkman's-eye-kind of taste of what these extra layers are all about (and what they contribute to the orchestral sonic texture), and that is Symphobia — to my ears, by far the best sounding orchestral emulation kit currently available.

The problem with samples (one of many, many problems) is: they are empty- and full-sounding at the same time. (And completely dead as well, of course.) Empty-sounding because they're never generated from within the context in which they will eventually be used and full-sounding because each sample is a complete recording in itself. (By 'complete', I mean: a complete and 'frozen' capture of the entire recordable frequency spectrum surrounding and including the sampled sound.) And that frozen completeness simply becomes way too much in a full arrangement and it is also impossible to adjust, let alone correct.

I'm actually truly surprised that the question is even raised here, among musicians no less, whether there's still an audible difference between real and sampled strings (and, by extension, real and sampled orchestras). If a flock of bored hairdressers were to devote time and attention to this (non-)issue, I could at least understand their helpless confusion, but _musicians_? 
In my view, the difference is still as big as it ever was. It's a different difference than the difference of, say, 5 or 10 years ago, but it's still a difference of ocean-like proportions, I believe. In fact, the closer our well-built ships may seem to be taking us, the bigger the final gap always seems to be. Looked at from where I'm splashing about in these increasingly frustrating waters anyway.

_


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 9, 2010)

Peter Alexander @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people want to fool the public into thinking that a computer can sound like an orchestra?
> ...



But not REALLY nothing. Royalties... which can be considerable...and producers have learned this.


----------



## twinsinmind (Sep 9, 2010)

Damn i triggered an Avalanche here......

Okay first of all i want to say that my remark wasn't meant for musicians
but the public who wants to see a movie or listen to music without musical knownledge (so the majority).

Lately a Soundtrack is more and more reviewed when it's released on CD or Itunes
. What is the Goal of a soundtrack , to support the movie, right?

And how many people will notice while watching a movie , if it are real strings or sampled. i can tell you, most of the Directors i work with just don't know the difference. As long as the music is fitting the picture and the sound is fantastic. 

I can imagine if you want to play Symphonics and Record Classical Albums with sample libraries that it will sound different then the real thing.

i aimed on HS and i am pretty sure the goal of EW was to make HOLLYWOOD strings. 

Do you really want to buy a 1300 dollar package and a 3000 dollar pc: just to make mockups?? Or do you buy this libraries cos you think they sound real enough to make actual finished compositions?

i do!!!


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 9, 2010)

Peter Alexander @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> The correct answer is YES, as others have noted.
> 
> But the commercial answer is that many producers, nor listeners, spend much time listening to live strings and live orchestras. And if they did, live orchestra budgets would be in a LOT better shape.



+1. The budgetary restrictions have plagued the industry for decades but no more true than today. I still believe when examining the realities of the economics that a reasonable compromise may still be to have both real players & good samples (with good mock-up practices) for the best results (in that price point). On those few occasions when the budget allows for recording an excellent orchestra recorded expertly, fabulous.


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Sep 9, 2010)

Shameless music plug:

http://www.aaronsapp.com/sapp_trk6_live_violin.mp3

http://www.aaronsapp.com/sapp_trk6_sampled_violin.mp3

http://www.aaronsapp.com/sapp_trk6_solo_violin.pdf

Solo violin part at 0:33


So I wrote this library track - hardly a brilliant piece of music, but an interesting comparison. I didn't think the sampled solo violin part was half bad until a friend suggested I get a live player. I supplied the player with a pretty crude PDF I exported out of Cubase and he recorded it in his own studio. I just told him to make it pretty.  And voila - the live solo is in a completely different league of its own. It's not like any one particular difference is huge, it's a lot of little things that make a big difference. When he decided to change bow direction, when to change strings or when to stay on a string, when to sound the vibrato, how much vibrato, how to phrase it, and I'm sure he did this all on the fly in a few takes without so much as a blink. All of a sudden my sampled solo violin pales. I don't think a non-musician will really be like "oh, that sounds fake" or "that sounds real", but I can't help but think they would respond like "I like that one, it has a little something something. Can't put my finger on it."


----------



## Peter Alexander (Sep 9, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> ...



IF it's not a buyout.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Sep 9, 2010)

twinsinmind @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Or do you buy this libraries cos you think they sound real enough to make actual finished compositions?
> 
> i do!!!



Exactly. 

Reality Check. Not everyone writes for cues or games. There is a thing called, "composer as artist," in which the composer with the right stuff (in more ways than one) can produce themselves and release their own product. 

This is totally valid, especially for small to large scale orchestral works because the cost of mounting a live performance, even a recorded performance, is extremely costly. 

With this you must take into account that even the concept of an album is beginning to change thanks to digital downloads. You can start by creating one (1) work and selling it as a download and begin drawing some income. You can build from there.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Sep 9, 2010)

David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Among the most difficult gigs are ones where the producer's primary goal is to make money. They don't care much about the quality, and getting something for nothing is the aesthetic.



I seriously encourage you to read John Graham's excellent article at Film Music Magazine. 
http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=6130


----------



## mjc (Sep 9, 2010)

Peter Alexander @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> I seriously encourage you to read John Graham's excellent article at Film Music Magazine.
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=6130



Wow. Best article I've ever read. Great work John! :D


----------



## Narval (Sep 9, 2010)

Aaron Sapp @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> http://www.aaronsapp.com/sapp_trk6_live_violin.mp3
> 
> http://www.aaronsapp.com/sapp_trk6_sampled_violin.mp3
> 
> http://www.aaronsapp.com/sapp_trk6_solo_violin.pdf


One example is worth one million words. Brilliant! Your violin mockup sounds good enough in the context, but a live performance sounds, well, a-live. Nice piece, btw!

I've noticed it before with the Gypsy violin: different notes seem to "shift" places, as if they're pan'ed slightly differently. Or could be a phase issue. Anyone else hears the notes moving left/right in the sample performance?

edit
Aaron, was that the Gypsy violin?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 9, 2010)

Yeah some really interesting comments here now! Will be reading John's article later when I have more time.

Why mock up rather than live? Of course it's budgets, I'm surprised at asking the question. But it's a much bigger issue than Hollywood wanting to get stuff on the cheap, which is a negative aspect. The positive side is that it makes other media - TV especially - better. I work in TV, and the standard achievable on a kids show is now in a totally different league to even 5 years ago. Seriously, go back 10 years and it was one man, his synth and a drum machine - that's all the budget has ever allowed for! Now, with talent and the right tools, it can sound outstanding, taking no more time and costing no more. That imho is an EXTREMELY positive thing.

Buyouts and royalties - the subject of another thread, but well worth starting one!

To those who can always tell in a mix whether real or sampled - hats off to you. TJ's Shipwrecked (as the example du jour) I couldn't tell in isolation, never mind in a mix... note, not saying that I couldn't hear the difference in an A/B test, but as a presented work, nothing strikes me as fake which I think is the acid test in the real world for directors, producers... and audience. Quite happy to admit others have more critical ears, and admiration that those critical ears can pick up on these nuances, while engrosed in a story and buried in a mix...


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 10, 2010)

> To those who can always tell in a mix whether real or sampled - hats off to you. TJ's Shipwrecked (as the example du jour) I couldn't tell in isolation, never mind in a mix... note, not saying that I couldn't hear the difference in an A/B test, but as a presented work, nothing strikes me as fake which I think is the acid test in the real world for directors, producers... and audience. Quite happy to admit others have more critical ears, and admiration that those critical ears can pick up on these nuances, while engrosed in a story and buried in a mix...




i agree with you. in fact it would take damn good string section in very good hall to sound better than that demo.

but here is the thing...it would.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Sep 10, 2010)

I'm afraid I'd be insulting saying for some people it is the same for them. It's a learning process for the ear to hear, recognize and pin point the differences, and to me just hearing a few notes, I could tell the difference, although this hasn't always been the case, and this doesn't take away that the piece could still sound great and you enjoy listening to it very much.

There is nothing wrong with having a very enjoyable string sound without it sounding exactly like real strings.


----------



## Narval (Sep 10, 2010)

There's another aspect: assigned value. 
Average listeners may not have critical ears, 
but if they know it's computer-played, 
they will downgrade it. And for a good reason.
It's not a matter of which sounds "better,"
physical instruments or virtual instruments. 
It's a matter of people assigning more value 
into warm and breathing bodies being in physical contact 
with the material bodies of those instruments. 

Computers? 
Any kid can photoshop. 
But it takes an artist to paint a portrait, 
with brush and paint,
on canvas.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 10, 2010)

ajcmuso @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Fri Sep 10 said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously encourage you to read John Graham's excellent article at Film Music Magazine.
> > http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=6130



Wow. Best article I've ever read. Great work òÒ   åÚ»Ò   åÚ¼Ò   åÚ½Ò   åÚ¾Ò   åÚ¿Ò   åÚÀÒ   åÚÁÒ   åÚÂÒ   åÚÃÒ   åÚÄÒ   åÚÅÒ   åÚÆÒ   åÚÇÒ   åÚÈÒ   åÚÉÒ   åÚÊÒ   åÚËÒ   åÚÌÒ   åÚÍÒ   åÚÎÒ   åÚÏÒ   åÚÐÓ   åÚÑÓ   åÚÒÓ   åÚÓÓ   åÚÔÓ   åÚÕÓ   åÚÖÓ   åÚ×Ó   åÚØÔ   åÚÙÔ   åÚÚÔ   åÚÛÔ   åÚÜÔ   åÚÝÔ   åÚÞÔ   åÚßÔ   åÚàÔ   åÚáÔ   åÚâÔ   åÚãÔ   åÚäÔ   åÚåÔ   åÚæÔ   åÚçÔ   åÚèÔ   åÚéÔ   åÚêÔ   åÚëÔ   åÚìÔ   åÚíÔ   åÚîÔ   åÚïÔ   åÚðÔ   åÚñÔ   åÚòÔ   åÚóÔ   åÚôÔ   åÚõÔ   åÚöÔ   åÚ÷Ô   åÚøÔ   åÚùÔ   åÚúÔ   åÚûÔ   åÚüÔ   åÚýÔ   åÚþÔ   åÚÿÔ   åÛ Ô   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛ	Ô   åÛ
Ô   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛ Ô   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÔ   åÛÕ   åÛÕ   åÛÕ   åÛÕ   åÛ Õ   åÛ!Õ   åÛ"Õ   åÛ#Õ   åÛ$Õ   åÛ%Õ   åÛ&Õ   åÛ'Õ   åÛ(Õ   åÛ)Õ   åÛ*              òÕ   åÛ,Õ   åÛ-Õ   åÛ.Õ   åÛ/Õ   åÛ0Õ   åÛ1Õ   åÛ2Õ   åÛ3Õ   åÛ4Õ   åÛ5Õ   åÛ6Õ   åÛ7Õ   åÛ8Õ   åÛ9Õ   åÛ:Õ   åÛ;Õ   åÛ<Õ   åÛ=Õ   åÛ>Õ   åÛ?Õ   åÛ@Õ   åÛAÕ   åÛBÕ   åÛCÕ   åÛDÕ   åÛEÕ   åÛFÕ   åÛGÕ   åÛHÕ   åÛIÕ   åÛJÕ   åÛKÕ   åÛLÕ   åÛMÕ   åÛNÕ   åÛOÕ   åÛPÕ   åÛQÕ   åÛRÕ   åÛSÕ   åÛTÕ   åÛUÕ   åÛVÕ   åÛWÕ   åÛXÕ


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 10, 2010)

David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> I love mangeling audio, programing synths, making music from unlikely objects. That's fun, to me. You can score a lot of projects that way.



That's great that you are able to experiment. But if the client wants an orchestral score and the budget allows only midi, the client isn't going to be happy with synths or unlikely objects. Doing other things may be more fun, but creating music that best serves the project isn't always going to allow going with the option that is the most fun.



David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Composers can enlighten their audience, and maintain professional standards. We don't have to eliminate live players to succeed. I am concerned that composers are making their lives harder by trying to replace live instruments with samples. I feel they can coexist to mutual benefit.



In general, it's good to use live players as much as possible. When budget allows, I'm happy to use them. But if I get a gig that pays me well to compose but I have to do it with samples since there's no budget for live players, I'm going to do it since I have a family to feed.



David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> My favorite composers use live players no matter the budget.



They should be thankful they are fortunate enough to be in that position. But there is plenty of work out there that simply doesn't allow that.

Do you use samples of real instruments in the final tracks you deliver? Or do you use live players on everything?



re-peat @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Mike Connelly @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > After all, a sample of a cymbal crash IS a recording of a cymbal crash.
> ...



True, but that's not an issue inherent to sampling - if you use all live players but track separately you have the same issue. So even using all live players may not improve that particular issue.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Sep 10, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Fri Sep 10 said:
> 
> 
> > I would of loved to meet Roger Kelloway! Not talked enough here.
> ...



Cool, thanks!


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Sep 10, 2010)

Narval @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> Aaron Sapp @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.aaronsapp.com/sapp_trk6_live_violin.mp3
> ...



Nah - I think it was an old Kirk Hunter Solo Strings patch. One of his "Romantic Violin' patches with some SIPS slapped on it.


----------



## poseur (Sep 10, 2010)

David Story @ Thu Sep 09 said:


> I want fake strings to sound cool, serve a function in the mix, not replace live performance.



i can understand & relate to this.

in preparing my last non-score CD for release,
i was convinced, by 2 of my esteemed colleagues,
to include a demo i'd barely completed, way back in 1998.
i never finished the demo, hadn't completed the orchestration by any stretch of the imagination,
was badly using some very cheap string-samples,
and the demo is pretty damned "lo-fi", even for me, etc etc etc.....
but, it's on the release, anyways.

right now, i'm re-orchestrating the sodden old chestnut,
for presentation/premiering by a european orchestra.

but, here it is in all its lack of glory, in even _cheaper_ mp3-format;
ha!

*miss place, the mist.....*
http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=9631388&q=hi

d


----------



## David Story (Sep 10, 2010)

Thanks poseur, art from another world
and we get to visit

please post a link when you have the new live version!


----------



## JJP (Sep 10, 2010)

I'm not sure if I shared this anecdote here before, but I think it's relevant.

About a year ago I orchestrated and conducted some string sessions for a composer in Hollywood who did not have much experience with live players. He was quite nervous because the budget did not allow for all the strings he thought were necessary. (Everybody thinks they need a huge section.) He was also nervous about working with live players and whether they would care as much about his music as he did, whether some stories he'd heard about studio musicians were true, blah blah.

I had told him not to worry because I would orchestrate well for the size ensemble we had (30 strings is no tiny section), I had picked the right studio for this size group, we had a top-notch players, a top-flight engineer whom I trusted, and a variety of other things in place to ensure we'd have great sessions.

He also wasn't sure if this was all worth the over $100k we were spending when the samples sounded pretty darn good to his ears.

I'll never forget the look on his face as he started hearing his music orchestrated and played live. He was literally speechless at points while sitting in the booth. He stammered to his assistant during playback, "That's my music but... it's like... a hundred times better!" There was subtlety and emotion he never even knew was in the writing. Then there were the engineers, players, music editor, and me, all constantly asking him if he was satisfied or if there was anything we could do to make it better... and then doing it instantly. He never could have imagined the results in the hands of seasoned professionals.

The icing on the cake is that the sessions won the composer a bunch of accolades and awards. It was by far the best project of his career to that point.

Yeah, there's definitely a place for live players. The important thing to remember is that the best results are a combination of good writing and good players in the right room with the right equipment and a wonderful crew. Music is a human endeavor. The most moving and successful music is infused with humanity and communicates with a subtlety I have yet to hear from a sampled ensemble.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 10, 2010)

Great story, JJP!

$100k... I work on TV shows where that's the production budget... and therein lies the problem I guess...



stevenson-again @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> i agree with you. in fact it would take damn good string section in very good hall to sound better than that demo.
> 
> but here is the thing...it would.



Absolutely (and proven by the story above). I think most of us agree on this point. But as NYC says in the current thread (shame there's two threads now on the same thing, think that one should migrate to this), it still feels moot. It might be a poor analogy, but the evolution of audio quality stopped with CD. It wasn't perfect, but it was good enough for 99% of people 99% of the time. Shipwrecked is at that level I think (its a flawed analogy cos I'm sure live players would bring more than 1% value to it, but the point is that imho most non-musicians can hear nothing wrong with the mockup... with no comparison it SOUNDS 99%). And when something is that good drive goes out of making the push for the last bit - especially given the expense.

[slight tangent... as I type I'm listening, yet again, to Powell's How To Train Your Dragon soundtrack. It's got to be my favourite in years and years... can't get enough of it. Keep hearing new touches all the time. And of course I've wondered if samples could be good enough to achieve what I'm hearing, make me feel what I do when I hear it. What would get lost? Is it quantifiable? I don't think it's as impossible as I do when hearing Star Wars, the styles are so different.]


----------



## poseur (Sep 10, 2010)

JJP @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> Music is a human endeavor. The most moving and successful music is infused with humanity and communicates with a subtlety I have yet to hear from a sampled ensemble.



well-said, sir or madame;
well-the-f•••-said!

i keep it live _whenever possible_,
where that is truò-   åíÔ-   åíÕ-   åíÖ-   åí×-   åíØ-   åíÙ-   åíÚ-   åíÛ-   åíÜ-   åíÝ-   åíÞ-   åíß-   åíà-   åíá-   åíâ-   åíã-   åíä-   åíå-


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 10, 2010)

Great post JJP - one of the best I've read in awhile. Thanks.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 10, 2010)

JJP @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> I'm not sure if I shared this anecdote here before, but I think it's relevant.
> 
> About a year ago I orchestrated and conducted some string sessions for a composer in Hollywood who did not have much experience with live players. He was quite nervous because the budget did not allow for all the strings he thought were necessary. (Everybody thinks they need a huge section.) He was also nervous about working with live players and whether they would care as much about his music as he did, whether some stories he'd heard about studio musicians were true, blah blah.
> 
> ...



this is essentially the same story I told earlier. So while the libraries have improved, this still remains the truth.


----------



## David Story (Sep 10, 2010)

JJP wonderful story, thank you.


----------



## Narval (Sep 10, 2010)

JJP, what film was that?


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: Hi Jay*



David Story @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> Hi Jay,
> 
> It dawned on me that you may be doing the work with Roger at Drew's place.
> I think we have met, this is David Raiklen.
> ...



Oh good lord, of course David. Let's chat sometime.

Email me: [email protected]


----------



## poseur (Sep 11, 2010)

David Story @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> Thanks poseur, art from another world
> and we get to visit


same damned world, d..... albeit a somewhat personal perspective, i guess.....



David Story @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> please post a link when you have the new live version!


thanks, will do!
that'll probably be about a year from now, it seems.

d


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 11, 2010)

A very good thread here, thanks Hannes! o-[][]-o


----------



## JJP (Sep 11, 2010)

Narval @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> JJP, what film was that?


To say more would make it easy for people to figure out names, and I don't want anyone to assume that I'm passing judgement on people's skills or experience. I hope you understand.

It's a happy story, and I'm glad to have helped someone's music reach its full potential. That's part of the real joy of what I do.


----------



## adg21 (Sep 11, 2010)

Aaron Sapp @ Fri Sep 10 said:


> Narval @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Aaron Sapp @ Thu Sep 09 said:
> ...



no offence but I don't think you've spent a lot of time making the mockup violin line sound the best of the best. so you can't really compare them. But the piece is great though


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 11, 2010)

I just got a chance to listen- to me, in this particular context, there's minimal difference.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 11, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Sat Sep 11 said:


> I just got a chance to listen- to me, in this particular context, there's minimal difference.



and if you play it with dialog and effect.. no one will ever notice... or even care.



im the scapegoat here... but man.. we really care for stuff that no one really cares about. 
yes, real stuff will sound better, but maybe the samples will do. 
the trick imo is to use samples, and charge as if you used an orchestra  
no one here is doing movies that are in cineplexes around the world, at most, a mixed between samples and real strings which i think is the best for films that are budgeted accordingly. 
when you have the chance to compose for those big block-busters then there is no choice.. its in the contract and its understood that you will use a live orchestra. 
but everything else,, whatever really. no one gives a damn, specially under dialog and under sfx. 
in this new world where everyone is suddenly hungry for content, i say use samples and let the director say, please use real orchestra. or if he asks say yes, and see if he believes it.  
producers and directors dont know. ive been ask by producers and directors here in hollywood , why not use a high school orchestra, save money? 
yes, we can try to educate them. yes, we can try to uphold our art to high standards of an era thats in our imagination.. mixed in a mesh of our heroes and samples/time constraint/ lower budgets , but if they dont tell a difference, maybe his audience doesn't, and at the end of the day we want a paycheck. yes, i an ideal world an orchestra playing live would be nice. 
and imo the only reason to actually use a live orchestra is to know what to do when you get hired to write the music for a blockbuster movie that not only be nice to do but will also be budgeted in a separate clause in your contract next to the composing fee. 
well, just another babble from a drunk guy who believes in the importance of art but suffers the battle of getting the daily dollar. (beatnik emoticon missing


----------



## JJP (Sep 11, 2010)

gsilbers @ Sat Sep 11 said:


> no one here is doing movies that are in cineplexes around the world


:shock: Dangerous assumption. 
You may be quite surprised at some people who visit this forum. (o)


----------



## Narval (Sep 11, 2010)

gsilbers @ Sat Sep 11 said:


> we can try to uphold our art to high standards of an era thats in our imagination.. mixed in a mesh of our heroes and samples/time constraint/ lower budgets
> ...
> well, just another babble from a drunk guy who believes in the importance of art but suffers the battle of getting the daily dollar.


On the importance of art as compared to the importance of the daily dollar: 
one can get that daily buck 
by servicing customers, 
while clinging to high standards 
is service done to one's own artistic integrity.
Being aware of these two creates the tension and anxiety 
tòà   æ•à   æ–à   æ—à   æ˜à   æ™à   æšà   æ›à   æœà   æà   æžà   æŸà   æ à   æ¡à   æ¢à   æ£à   æ¤à   æ¥à   æ¦à   æ§à   æ¨à   æ©à   æªà   æ«à   æ¬à   æ­à   æ®à   æ¯à   æ°à   æ±à   æ²à   æ³à   æ´à   æµà   æ¶à   æ·à


----------



## tslesicki (Sep 12, 2010)

gsilbers @ Sat Sep 11 said:


> im the scapegoat here... but man.. we really care for stuff that no one really cares about.
> yes, real stuff will sound better, but maybe the samples will do.
> the trick imo is to use samples, and charge as if you used an orchestra
> no one here is doing movies that are in cineplexes around the world, at most, a mixed between samples and real strings which i think is the best for films that are budgeted accordingly.
> ...



No offense, but I think it's the most reasonable post in this thread. With the current crop of string libraries we have the tools that allow us to make our compositions sound _good_. Of course, nothing can beat the real thing but 99% of the audience doesn't:

1) care
2) know what the samples are (really)
3) can't tell the difference

The never-ending crave for samples ("Honey, but these strings have improved legato transitions, it's something I totally need to write!") is more for our egos than for anything else. We want our music to sound as good as it can, there's nothing wrong about it, but the number of people who can actually tell the difference between EWQLSO, LASS and CS is pretty limited. Don't expect your audience to say "hey, this guy is using the 11Vln Lyr B patch form EWQL!" or "wow, I love the sound of Symphobia!". All of these libraries sound good enough. Good enough to compose, good enough to fool people into thinking that the music is played by an orchestra. Guys who have used samples will tell the difference but your audience *does not* consist of the mockup artists.

I remember reading a post on this forum a while ago, when one of the memebers said that somebody's "music is nice, but the *legato transitions are not realistic*". Do you _really_ think that the people who will listen to your music care about the legato transitions? Or maybe they care about the composition?

My point is: don't worry about your tools. They sound good enough to let you compose cool tunes. Focus on these and you'll be victorious.


----------



## poseur (Sep 12, 2010)

gsilbers @ Sat Sep 11 said:


> no one here is doing movies that are in cineplexes around the world



what?
no, that's dead wrong.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Sep 12, 2010)

tslesicki - I agree with some of where you're coming from, but I think you're taking it too far. To comment that the "legato transitions aren't realistic" is absolutely important, and yes it does matter to a casual listener. Of course they will not say "the legato transitions aren't realistic". They probably will have no clue that something is even wrong. But what they may very well find is that it just doesn't hit the bullseye with them - it sounds fine, but not amazing and they lack the tools to deconstruct it.

You absolutely SHOULD worry about your tools. Any craftsman or woman should. At question here on this thread is if the best tools - in the hands of a skilled craftsperson - are good enough now. I say, in the real world, they are, they have reached the point where it sounds perfect to the casual listener (even if it isn't). But that certainly won't be the case if the legato transitions aren't any good!


----------



## poseur (Sep 12, 2010)

post self-deleted.


----------



## tslesicki (Sep 12, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Sun Sep 12 said:


> You absolutely SHOULD worry about your tools. Any craftsman or woman should. At question here on this thread is if the best tools - in the hands of a skilled craftsperson - are good enough now. I say, in the real world, they are, they have reached the point where it sounds perfect to the casual listener (even if it isn't). But that certainly won't be the case if the legato transitions aren't any good!



Well, I agree. Kind of  I'm not a composer, I'm photographer so I can give you an example from this field, but I think it's pretty universal. Some time ago, I had a discussion with a friend of mine. He's an avid Canon user, I'm a Leica photographer. He claimed that Canon lenses are sharper than Leica's so we did some tests and it turns out that both lenses are sharp, however Leica is sharper (yay, I was right :D). When you look at these pictures side-by-side you see the difference immediately. In fact, the Canon looks a little soft by comparison. But the question is: would you be able to tell the difference if you didn't had a chance to compare these pictures?

Ok, so how does a lens refer to the sampled strings? :D If you have no point of reference you're more likely to accept the music as realistic. If there are no hints that scream "SAMPLES!!!" (you know, that smeared, muddy, synthy sound), the audience will be fooled. I've heard many great mockups done with EWQLSO. Does it have real legato samples? Nope. Does it sound incredibly awesome? Nope. But you know what? In the real world nobody cares. It sounds good enough. I agree, not perfect, but good enough. An of course, I we had a chance to hear the same music played by real and sampled strings we'd say that the real thing sounds better. Because it does. But what does it matter if your audience won't know if it's real or sampled?

We're living in interesting times. An orchestra is no longer a must - it's an option.


----------



## adg21 (Sep 12, 2010)

gsilbers @ Sun Sep 12 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Sep 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I just got a chance to listen- to me, in this particular context, there's minimal difference.
> ...



heads up, i've only been a member of this forum for 24 hours and i've recognised a couple of names


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 12, 2010)

gsilbers @ Sat Sep 11 said:


> no one here is doing movies that are in cineplexes around the world



You're joking, right?


----------



## Animus (Sep 12, 2010)

Frederick Russ @ Sun Sep 12 said:


> gsilbers @ Sat Sep 11 said:
> 
> 
> > no one here is doing movies that are in cineplexes around the world
> ...



Yes, surely he must be kidding. I just did two last week myself.


----------



## Narval (Sep 12, 2010)

[this post
has vanished
along with its reason of existence]


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 12, 2010)

Because of the dynamics running the forum, I do have insider information because of the behind the scenes happenings on the forum. Many composers from all walks of life - including those considered famous - do frequent the forums and stay anonymous for their own reasons. If they choose to reveal themselves its really their own choice and not mine.


----------



## poseur (Sep 12, 2010)

Narval @ Sun Sep 12 said:


> Very, and I mean VERY presumptuous. You present a very, and I mean VERY ugly image of the person behind the post you're addressing. A failed artist with no balls? Needing to consider changing himself, or to at least act like an artist, since he isn't one? I mean, WTF?
> 
> Maybe you missed the meaning of his first and last lines, but that's no excuse for making all those nasty assumptions on such a personal level.


you've misunderstood both what i actually wrote,
and my intent.
i'm sorry for that, but.
i've been reading posts that exhibit/embody certain attitudes, here, for a few years,
from people who are actually working in the industry.....
and made that clear, i think,
that my reactions were generalised,
but aimed more in the direction of attitude & perception, than to any one person.
i could have, maybe should have,
not directed the post as a response to mr. silbers;
maybe i should never have said "you",
since, in point of fact, i address myself, in these attitudinal & philosophical regards,
precisely as i do to others.
my bad, then.
but:
context.
history.
motif.

since you're (wrongly, i think) offended, though,
i'll politely delete my post.
feel free (or, not) to do the same w/your quote.
up to you, of course; ton choix. your choice, obviously.

i certainly meant herr silbers no personal harm;
in my own (maybe odd) way, i sensed a problem,
and was trying, believe it or not, to help..... anyone, here, who's working on their music,
including myself.
selfish, maybe --- ok.

it's all good, though;
my opinions might truly be useless, wrong and/or meaningless.

d


----------



## Narval (Sep 12, 2010)

poseur,

All's well that ends well.


:wink:


----------



## cc64 (Sep 12, 2010)

Well i for one feel lucky i got to read your post, Poseur, before it got deleted by you.

Highly motivational for me coming from someone whom i think is genuinely here to help and share with his confrères. 

So keep 'em coming, some of them are like mini-Masterclasses.
Best,

Claude


----------



## JohnG (Sep 12, 2010)

I feel the same way. I think poseur is just talking like someone who actually inhabits this competitive world.

I'd go further and say he's taking mr. silbers seriously, as a grown-up and a professional, which is actually flattering, not insulting.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 12, 2010)

(I'd love to read poseur's deleted post if someone has it)


----------



## poseur (Sep 12, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Sun Sep 12 said:


> (I'd love to read poseur's deleted post if someone has it)


sorry, l.
i really did delete the little post/rant.

i didn't wanna engage in an argument;
neither did i feel too good about having my intent potentially further misunderstood,
only to then feel the need to backpedal & re-explain myself a few times.....
been on these here intreenetz for while, now, so.

best,
d


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 13, 2010)

no worries dude, all good.


----------



## Narval (Sep 13, 2010)

With apologies for momentarily interrupting the sycophantic effusions - back on topic.



Hannes_F @ Wed Sep 08 said:


> I had the pleasure to record a number of demo tracks for a young composer and next thing I heard is that he is signed for four (!) films. That is why I think samples are great and good and useful ... but composers should not think people (and producers) would not notice the difference. Maybe they did not even think "wow, that is a great strings sound". But obviously they thought "wow, that is a talented composer". Mission accomplished.


If that doesn't answer _the meaning _of the title-question, then I don't know what else could. Sampled strings make you sound good. Real strings (especially those that belong to Hannes) make you sound talented.

More to the point: this thread is not a quest for understanding. The understanding is a given, which makes the title-question rhetorical. The story about the composer signed for four (!) films (because of the live strings) is the real subject matter. It is a fact, and it's meant to demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of the professional player. 

Even more explicitly put, Hannes is not trying here to figure out whether or not there's "still" a difference between live strings and sampled strings and why would that be. He is fully aware of the difference. Here he is only using a false dilemma as a vehicle for promoting his valuable services. 

To which I wholeheartedly subscribe: Let the talent of a pro player shine upon your music - your clients will think the talent is all yours.


----------



## Hannes_F (Sep 13, 2010)

Hey Narval,

of course I personally know the difference between live and sampled strings, I think I outlined my position in my original post.

However even if you find nice words about my service (thank you) the topic goes much deeper than my personal interest as a recording musician (I know you know that but still wanted to mention it). I am at least as interested in a scientific way watching a cultural phenomenon like I am as a service provider ... I mean, how many times in your life are we witnessing of a paradigm shift of a whole industry? 

However as a scientist I would have to take myself completely out of the game. I can't really do that but at least I wondered whether I should contribute to this discussion by providing a HS clip beefed up by my strings just to have some discussion material - but then decided this would have a taste of a campaign (I have done similar recordings with other libraries too but never released one). 

Whatever, I can honestly say that in the case somebody has the budget for a full orchestra for a project instead of using my service I will always advise to record the orchestra, and I personally think it will be worth it (in the case of good players). But that is only the opinion of a single guy while this whole question should indeed about how much (or not) producers, composers and the whole music industry appreciate live strings over sampled strings in practise (or not) and that goes far beyond my little person. 

Nevertheless thank you for noticing that the original question is actually more than about an objective difference (for me it goes without saying that it is there and it is huge) but how and whether this still is perceived and appreciated.


----------



## Narval (Sep 13, 2010)

Then I guess your question is: If you can hear the difference and you like it, how much are you willing to pay for it?


----------



## poseur (Sep 13, 2010)

altered to PM.

d


----------



## Hannes_F (Sep 13, 2010)

Narval @ Mon Sep 13 said:


> Then I guess your question is: If you can hear the difference and you like it, how much are you willing to pay for it?



Hmm ... no that is not the question since I have my price list and also know how much orchestra recordings cost. None of these are going to change much as they are time and effort determined.

I have a certain own interest in live string recordings staying popular in the industry ... of course. But my commercial interest is actually so / so because I can tell you it is much work for the money, nothing to get rich, and if I would dry out of recording gigs I would actually finally have time to record my own music (which is why I originally developed my method) since predominantly I came to this forum as an aspiring composer - the idea to record myself and do that overdubbing thing came actually from buddy forum members here.

What I am much more concerned about is the advent of music itself in the case composers dissociate themselves too much from live players.


----------



## Narval (Sep 13, 2010)

poseur,
I take it that -
as you (said you) did 
in the self-deleted post - 
you were, _in point of fact,_ 
addressing yourself.


Hannes,
When asking that question, I was only partially (and only as a friendly wink) referring to your particular case. The larger meaning of my question was: If you think the performance of a professional player really makes a difference for your music, how much are you willing to pay so that your music stands out? Or, in a mirrored, _negative_ way - by leaving the pro players out of your music, doesn't that mean that you're willingly paying the price of keeping your music at the mockery level? There is a price to be paid in each case.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 13, 2010)

tslesicki @ Sun Sep 12 said:


> We want our music to sound as good as it can, there's nothing wrong about it, but the number of people who can actually tell the difference between EWQLSO, LASS and CS is pretty limited.



I dare say that I suspect in many cases, if the same track was done well with all the latest string libraries, a fair number of composers would probably have a hard time picking out which library was which. Especially in a full orchestral track. When demos sound mindblowing but user tracks have a hard time getting that same sound, I have to wonder how much is the library and how much is having someone brilliant do the demos.

Of course, there's going to be a big difference between a bad library and a great one, I just think that once you reach a certain level of library, a great composer is going to be able to get great results out of any of them.


----------



## David Story (Sep 13, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Mon Sep 13 said:


> I mean, how many times in your life are we witnessing of a paradigm shift of a whole industry?
> ...
> What I am much more concerned about is the advent of music itself in the case composers dissociate themselves too much from live players.



Hannes, I see the same paradigm shift, it is more profound than many realize. If you've worked with live performers, using computers instead is a bit like a scifi movie. One of those films where humans are dominated by machines, the kind the audience-including me-thinks could never happen. Yet it can...

The cyborg composer is accepted by the industry and public as better than the merely human orchestra. Many composers, directors, and audience members prefer the sampled, processed sound. Not the same, but a better sound than the "old" orchestra. So 20th century.

JJP eloquently said:
'Music is a human endeavor. The most moving and successful music is infused with humanity and communicates with a subtlety I have yet to hear from a sampled ensemble."

I believe music requires a composer, performer and audience to achieve greatness, to be moving yet subtle.

I love the live-electronic hybrid music that poseur, Bear and a few others create.
That music is a collaborative human endeavor, to me. The electronics are part of the orchestra, the sound has a natural, acoustic feel. Plus the processing.

The sample orchestra seems anti-collaborative, like it's one person trying to take over the world with technology. But most of us, including me, are impressed by the power of a high end DAW and samples. Seductive in many ways. 

The rationale of budget seems to blind many of us to the dehumanizing effect of samples. 

Performers have rarely reached out to new composers, and now composers turn to libraries and programing to hear their music. There are some wonderful and novel sounds, and the public will pay for this kind of music. 

But there's a hidden cost. Much sample based music is attempting(and succeeding) in replacing live players. And that could cost your soul. The music and you. Then again, maybe there is no soul, and nobody can tell the difference anyway, hmm...

Personally, I think composing for live players will come back strong.
Or maybe I just lack the talent to be a performer, engineer, publicist etc, and don't see the new world of DIY.


----------



## Dom (Sep 13, 2010)

gsilbers @ Sun Sep 12 said:


> the trick imo is to use samples, and charge as if you used an orchestra


The problem is, that I normally do the opposite. :cry: 

I nearly always use live strings as I personally find it difficult to get an emotive sound with samples. I find it also takes a very long time to do good mockups. recording live is a lot quicker for me, and it's easier to do changes on the spot in terms of character and overall dynamics. 

A lot of composers think they have to get huge string sections, but really you can get a great sound with 13 great players in a good room. Even a quartet can sound great. One can then use sampled pianos, percussion, synths etc to make it bigger.

I also find live recordings almost better value than samples: If you keep up with the latest top libraries you spend probably about £4000 every two years (including the hardware needed to run the libraries). But you could record a full length film with a string quartet in a 3 hour session. On the MU low budget rate it would cost about £1300 including a top London studio and top players. In 10 years time you will still be happy to listen to your string quartet score, but the sampled score may well sound dated.

Cheers

Dom


----------



## Narval (Sep 13, 2010)

On my living room wall clock there's a thin red _paradigm_ shifting position every second.


----------

