# String sound realism - a small test



## Goran (Oct 8, 2012)

The "Creating good string sound"-topic kind of gave me an incentive to post a test (I always vary these a bit) I have been giving for a while now. In this instance there are 7 examples (string & full symphony orchestra), and there is one question:

*Which of the examples (if any) are sample-based productions?*

You can but you don't have to limit your answer to a sequence of example numbers - if you like, you can elaborate the concrete reasons for your choice.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you have already done this or similar test and know the tracks, please don't disclose your knowledge. This test is completely meaningless otherwise.

You can post your answers here or you can send them to me via pm. In one week (monday in seven days) I'll post the results - and, don't be scared, these will be anonymous (no names/aliases involved) 

Here's the link:

http://www.digital-orchestra-production.com/en/demos/strings-test/index.html

IMPORTANT EDIT: if you like, send me the names of the composers and the pieces (please don't post this  - when we're at it, let's make it a small symphonic literature quiz as well...

IMPORTANT EDIT II: Sorry, this was a stupid omission of mine:

*Are any of these hybrid productions (f.e. real strings with sampled woods and brass or vice versa)?*

**************************

ADDENDUM: I thought I'll do this later, but we can just as well do it in one package - I added 8 new examples (Nr.8-15), this time for large and very large string sections. 

The questions remain the same.


----------



## jamwerks (Oct 8, 2012)

Hi I took the test. Seems to me that only number three is samples.
It's pretty revealing imo when players cresc. or decresc, you can tell if it's fake or not.


----------



## Mike Marino (Oct 8, 2012)

I would agree with Jamwerks


----------



## TGV (Oct 8, 2012)

#1. Phrasing is very natural, trills speed up and down. Gotta be real.
#2. Strings sounded real, woodwinds less. 
#3. Samples. The high strings sound like it; the cello melody has an artificial quality to it. And some of the dynamics.
#4. The string sound doesn't convince me, but the playing is very natural, so I guess it's real.
#5. Too subtle to be samples. The soft strings, and the blending of the woodwinds are very nice. If this is samples, I want the recipe!
#6. At first I thought it could be samples, but the descending line at 0:17 sounded too real. The woodwinds in the rest also sound realistic, and the strings have a different sound even when repeating the notes.
#7. This sounds weird to me. The woodwinds stick out in the first part (e.g. 0:32), but later not. However, that line at 1:04, and the crescendo sound too real.


----------



## Resoded (Oct 8, 2012)

I'm going to take a risk here (I'm a noob anyways so I have nothing to lose!) and say that all of them are samples.

Let's hope I'm not overestimating your abilities, cause it sounds great.


----------



## Goran (Oct 8, 2012)

IMPORTANT EDIT: if you like, send me the names of the composers and the pieces (please don't post this) - when we're at it, let's make it a small symphonic literature quiz as well...

IMPORTANT EDIT II: Sorry, this was a stupid omission of mine:

*Are any of these hybrid productions (f.e. real strings with sampled woods and brass or vice versa)?*


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 8, 2012)

What TGV says:



TGV @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> #1. Phrasing is very natural, trills speed up and down. Gotta be real.
> #2. Strings sounded real, woodwinds less.
> HF: If you ever want to fool people choose something with only one articulation in the violins and pizz in the basses.
> #3. Samples. The high strings sound like it; the cello melody has an artificial quality to it. And some of the dynamics.
> ...



EDIT: I wrote the above just regarding the strings.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 8, 2012)

I am not in my studio and listening with a headphones on my e-bbok (not best quality DA converters), but I only hear samples. 



Hannes_F @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> A studio recording perhaps with electronic reverb. You hear that probably the studio is not the biggest one, therefore a slight irritation happens with the ERs.


To my ears this sound more like VSL strings.... .

I will later listen to the tracks when I am back in the studio.


----------



## Goran (Oct 8, 2012)

@Hannes

"HF: If you ever want to fool people choose something with only one articulation in the violins and pizz in the basses."

Meaning strings are real or meaning strings are sampled (example 2)?


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 8, 2012)

Goran @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> @Hannes
> 
> "HF: If you ever want to fool people choose something with only one articulation in the violins and pizz in the basses."
> 
> Meaning strings are real or meaning strings are sampled (example 2)?



I could do it both with real and samples 

But it would require quite some time and I think this is real (the strings).
The woodwinds in this example sound as if they are recorded in a different hall, so either that or they are sampled.


----------



## leafInTheWind (Oct 8, 2012)

Thought that #3 is sampled, rest seems very authentic. 240MKII's off my laptop's audio jack.


----------



## Hicks (Oct 8, 2012)

I would say only number 3. All the others got too much musicality and even if it is possible to make real cresendo or descresendo via VSL dynamics patches, those ones I can hear are too much under control to be used via samples.

Maybe number 2 as well is sample based, as Hannes said, with only one articulation it can be done via a patch I don't know about but the room seems soo realistic.

If I am wrong, we got one samples mastermind with us! o-[][]-o


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 8, 2012)

Goran, did you realize some of these yourself?


----------



## Goran (Oct 8, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> Goran, did you realize some of these yourself?



Hi Ned,

I'm sorry, but I can't comment on this right now (I'll post the results in one week 

In the meantime you can listen to some of my demo-productions here:

http://www.digital-orchestra-production.com/en/demos/index.html


----------



## Goran (Oct 8, 2012)

ADDENDUM: I thought I'll do this later, but we can just as well do it in one package - I added 8 new examples (Nr.8-15), this time for large and very large string sections.

The questions remain the same:

*a) Which of these (if any) are sample-based productions?*

*b) Are there any hybrid productions (f.e. real strings but sampled woods or vice versa)*

The names of composers and pieces are also welcome  - send me a pm...


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 8, 2012)

Who has got the time to listen and answer question 2? 

Goran, you 'll post the results in one week? 

Oposs, one week is like a year ot two for me.... !


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 8, 2012)

Quite a few sound like sampled strings to me, but like Gunther, I don't have the time to sit and analyze each one. I will say that these are excellent motivators to take your Vienna course once you translate it into English, which I wish you would do soon.

PA


----------



## Blakus (Oct 8, 2012)

I just had a quick listen to a small excerpt of each example, #3 and #11 stood out to me as samples by doing this. I was really only listening to strings, and a proper listen might change my mind


----------



## Goran (Oct 8, 2012)

germancomponist @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> Who has got the time to listen and answer question 2?



Thank you Gunther, this is actually a big compliment - it means examples are not that obvious (even in what I call a "half-blind" test, a true blind test is a completely different story altogether) and take some time and consideration 



germancomponist @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> Goran, you 'll post the results in one week?
> 
> Oposs, one week is like a year ot two for me.... !



Sorry about that, this will just have to be _eine kleine Übung im Stoizismus_... 

However, if there will be no more interest in taking the test before that, I'll post them sooner.

But how about you do your part in the meantime (question a) concerning strings will suffice if you have no time for b)) and post or send me the answers?


----------



## Goran (Oct 8, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> Quite a few sound like sampled strings to me, but like Gunther, I don't have the time to sit and analyze each one. I will say that these are excellent motivators to take your Vienna course once you translate it into English, which I wish you would do soon.
> 
> PA



Thank you for your kind comment, Peter, and since we are on the subject, I will actually have some very good news for those interested in Englisch VSL course in a very forseeable future . 

If you would still like to take a short guess, send me a pm (would be very appreciated, as I am sort of amassing my "half-blind" test data). Strings will do, no need to bother with the rest if you're just short on time.


----------



## Goran (Oct 8, 2012)

Blakus @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> I just had a quick listen to a small excerpt of each example, #3 and #11 stood out to me as samples by doing this. I was really only listening to strings, and a proper listen might change my mind



If you find time for a proper listen (strings will suffice if the rest would take too much time), I'll appreciate it


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 9, 2012)

Goran @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> Blakus @ Mon Oct 08 said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a quick listen to a small excerpt of each example, #3 and #11 stood out to me as samples by doing this. I was really only listening to strings, and a proper listen might change my mind
> ...



Only a quick listen but they all are sounding to me like they are samples because while well done they sound, for want of a better term, sterile. Unless it is just the pieces themselves.

Listen to the passion and nuance in this snippet of the real deal.
http://soundcloud.com/jay-asher/the-lon ... mmer-intro

Or this, stings come in at about 1:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWMxX5MGuHI


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 9, 2012)

Goran,

I enjoy this exercise, specially when the productions in discussion combine quality on the library side as well as the production side.

I want to revise this post later today or tomorrow, from my studio, as my first listening now is through common earbuds, which kill most of the high-end and mud the low-end. But it's interesting to see the degree of difference with my later audition through better quality gear.

Second set:
8- Live
9- Live
10- Tough, as I'm getting psicologically biased too... didn't you do Nimrod virtually sometime ago? You picked a good tough middle section in the piece. Definitely ought to listen later.
11- Samples
12- Samples
13- Live
14- Samples
15- Live

________________________
Revision:
8- Live: Both space, dynamics and playing sound to me very organic.
9- Live: Same as previous.
10- Very tough. I'm 60/40 it's samples, it's a bit too perfect, and at times the basses sound too focused. If samples, it's very well realized dynamically, specially the high strings.
11- Samples: No doubt. Space, the opening oboe and the cello are too focused and upfront.
12- Samples: Cello is VSL no matter what, a bit too focused. There are a couple of intervals in the violin line that are played in a way I don't believe would be the most natural way to be played by a real violin player. Everything also sounds a bit too perfect.
13- Live: Noises (not that these couldn't be replicated artificially, but unlikely that'd be the case here), very organic dynamics, basses sound loosely focused (more organic).
14- (change) Live: The sound is very organic, basses are not as focused, you can hear a couple of noises at the beginning (same caviat as before). Sounds like an older mix, much less "perfect" stereo placement.
15- (change) Samples: Too perfect, at times synthy sounding (a consequence), very focused all across the board.


First set:
1- Live: Definitely real organic vibrato.
2- Live: Quite obvious as well, noises, organic synchronization in the violins...
3- Samples: Too perfect, quantized, a bit overpowering mix.
4- Live: Very nice mix. You can feel the very organic dynamics, and also some faint noises.
5- Live: Absolutely no doubt. There is a particular tone to this orchestra that doesn't sound like any library in the market I've heard, plenty of noises, organic dynamics. 
6- Live: But tough to say at times. Sounds too perfect at first, line between the bassoon and cellos specially, but everything sounds fairly organic. Great execution nevertheless.
7- Samples: String dynamics don't sound as organic, the mix is a bit upfront, vs. my metal reference to an orchestral concert room mix. The fastest legato transitions don't sound real to me.


----------



## Goran (Oct 9, 2012)

*@Jay*

Thanks for listening. Imo the examples you posted clear (at least for me) many of our differences on this subject. F.e. there are a few examples in both sets which I find to be considerably more nuanced and detailed then the first one you posted, and at least as detailed as the second.

As far as "passion" is concerned - the sound and the playing style of your examples work excellent for the genres (jazz/film), but are imo completely out of place in symphonic music of the sort the sets are comprised of. In this context, what you call "passionate" I would probably call "kitschig" (a German expression I don't know the English word for), and what you call "sterile" I would (in this particular case) call "subtle, measured and controlled". I suppose it boils down to a difference in musical temperaments... :wink: 


*@Gusfmm*

Thanks, I'am glad you enjoyed this and am looking forward to your final answer.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 9, 2012)

Goran @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> *@Jay*
> 
> Thanks for listening. Imo the examples you posted clear (at least for me) many of our differences on this subject. F.e. there are a few examples in both sets which I find to be considerably more nuanced and detailed then the first one you posted, and at least as detailed as the second.
> 
> As far as "passion" is concerned - the sound and the playing style of your examples work excellent for the genres (jazz/film), but are imo completely out of place in symphonic music of the sort the sets are comprised of. In this context, what you call "passionate" I would probably call "kitschig" (a German expression I don't know the English word for), and what you call "sterile" I would (in this particular case) call "subtle, measured and controlled". I suppose it boils down to a difference in musical temperaments... :wink:



Goran, true, but how many applications, other than orchestral mockups of classical pieces for practice, do people still have for that style of writing? Not challenging you, just asking.

EDIT:Let me stress in no way am I casting any kind of criticism towards you Goran. You are WAY more skilled than i am with samples and I TOTALLY admire you.


----------



## Ed (Oct 9, 2012)

Gusfmm @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> 12- Samples
> 14- Samplese



I would be very surprised if these two were samples.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2012)

When I listen to strings, the most important thing for me aren't the articulations per se, but the "sound", the string sound realism...., what is asked in the headline here.

And to my ears, after listening in my studio, (I have not listened to the new examples....), it is the same what I heared yesterday in my headphones: Samples, all tracks.... . 

Huh..... o/~


----------



## Goran (Oct 9, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> Goran @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > *@Jay*
> ...



Sample-based production of classical pieces is imo a discipline anybody striving to improve the quality of their sample-based orchestral productions should practice. It is, admittedly, the most difficult, but also the most rewarding and, of special importance, the most universally applicable one, because it raises one's general level of sensitivity to detail as well as the level of adaptivity to very different playing and sound styles. It is actually only since I have begun doing orchestrations/productions for clients working in the film/tv/games-field that I have started to fully appreciate how immensely I have profited from my accumulated experience and skill acquired through such practice.

And, secondly, there are very many people who compose orchestral music outside the sphere of media music, and would like to hear their work in the best possible shape without having to declare bankruptcy (these would include myself as well). For them, improving skills needed for such productions simply has no alternative - and the results which can be achieved today go, as this test has already amply demonstrated, pretty deep into the grey zone where the line between sampled and real becomes very, very blurry


----------



## Goran (Oct 9, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> EDIT:Let me stress in no way am I casting any kind of criticism towards you Goran. You are WAY more skilled than i am with samples and I TOTALLY admire you.



No offence taken, Jay o-[][]-o - I have never had any reason to feel offended by anything you wrote concerning my examples or my musicianship in general.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 9, 2012)

Goran @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Goran @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> ...



Perfectly explained Goran.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 9, 2012)

I would add to your comments, based on my own sales experience, that there are thousands of potential customers, and with each annually graduating group of composers from music schools, the field is constantly growing. 

A decade ago when I was a VSL dealer, I did then what you, Goran, are doing now. I had the best training of any VSL dealer or distributor. So I saw at the grass roots level what people wanted to learn, including pros, who didn't always have time to become programming mavens.

The gray zone, as you call it, is answering the question, "How did you get to the end result?" Not just patches. Not just MIDI editing. But mixing, too, including EQ and Reverb.

Consequently, the market is huge, but you the Trainer can't develop it alone. It's too costly. You must have OEM support to get there - no matter who the OEM is.


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 9, 2012)

Goran @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> ... and the results which can be achieved today go, as this test has already amply demonstrated, pretty deep into the grey zone where the line between sampled and real becomes very, very blurry



... at least this is the outcome you wish this thread to have and therefore you interpret the postings accordingly


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2012)

2 weeks later, please!


----------



## Goran (Oct 9, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> Goran @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > ... and the results which can be achieved today go, as this test has already amply demonstrated, pretty deep into the grey zone where the line between sampled and real becomes very, very blurry
> ...



:?: Sense some hostility here? Want to do the second set for better mood? (lots of nice music in there...)


----------



## Goran (Oct 9, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> The gray zone, as you call it, is answering the question, "How did you get to the end result?" Not just patches. Not just MIDI editing. But mixing, too, including EQ and Reverb.
> 
> Consequently, the market is huge, but you the Trainer can't develop it alone. It's too costly. You must have OEM support to get there - no matter who the OEM is.



Agree very much with this, Peter. Both parts are currently being worked on.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 9, 2012)

I think that 3, 4, 7 and 15 are samples.

I'm not as certain about 4 and 7 though.

None of them sound bad at all.
If any of these actually are samples, then, samples are good enough, at least for the musical styles presented here.


----------



## TGV (Oct 9, 2012)

A go at the second set:
#8. The first note sounded synthy, but then it started to sound real. The english horns (oboes?) on the other hand sounded a bit drier, a bit clunky and louder than the strings.
#9. Same composer, sounds pretty real to me.
#10. Gives me the same feeling as #8: I seem to hear the same transition every time. I guess that's what Günther meant. However, if this is samples, then it's damn good, so I'm going for real.
#11. Damn, this is ambiguous. It starts utterly real, but the woodwinds ... And then there is a really MIDI crescendo at 1:20. It's a difficult choice, but right now I say: samples.
#12. Same transitions again. But real.
#13. Real. Period. The sound is just too subtle. Makes me doubt my decisions on the preceding tracks, which all sound less lively than this track.
#14. Teppich aber slicht, or something like that. The sound is certainly not concert hall like. Samples? Would be very well done though.
#15. The repeated notes in the violins sound fake-ish, and there are one or two more points that make me doubt. Perhaps PT is right and this is samples.

Well Goran, this is a very nice exercise. I think that you've demonstrated that if we want to hear samples, we hear them. And even the pieces which I "suspect" of being virtual, sound pretty good, so whichever pieces you did, well done.


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 9, 2012)

Goran @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> Hannes_F @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Goran @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> ...



How could I be hostile to the real music lover that you are? Not at all.

I just ask for soberness. o-[][]-o 

Ah, and 3 + 11 are clearly samples.


----------



## Goran (Oct 9, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> How could I be hostile to the real music lover that you are? Not at all.
> 
> I just ask for soberness. o-[][]-o
> 
> Ah, and 3 + 11 are clearly samples.



Thanks for taking the second set, Hannes. :wink: 

a) 11 - strings or woods, in your opinion? Or both?

b) Any examples which are iyo not _clearly _samples, but _could be_ samples (2nd set, you answered this for the 1st already (example 2))?


----------



## P.T. (Oct 9, 2012)

I have to agree that 11 is samples.
It's mostly the excessive cc manipulation at some points that are too extreme.


----------



## Goran (Oct 9, 2012)

*@P.T. & TGV*

Thanks for taking the time and consideration. Especially TGVs very elaborated answers are much appreciated.


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 10, 2012)

Revision submitted on my original post. Would like to take some time to dissect the first set as well, later today or tomorrow.


----------



## Goran (Oct 10, 2012)

Gusfmm @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> Revision submitted on my original post. Would like to take some time to dissect the first set as well, later today or tomorrow.



Thanks, this is a very elaborate analysis, which I appreciate very much. Looking forward to your analysis of the first set as well.


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 11, 2012)

First set comments included. What's the price??? :D


----------



## Goran (Oct 11, 2012)

Gusfmm @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> First set comments included. What's the price???  :D



Unfortunately, there is no prize except perhaps a few important insights into our listening psychology... :wink: 

Thanks for doing the first set as well.


----------



## Leosc (Oct 11, 2012)

1. Very organic. No way this was sampled.
2. Dynamics and microtuning are too fine for samples. Live.
3. Samples. Noticeable in the... are those supposed to be celli or high bass? and the dynamic resolution.
4. A little harder to discern. Pretty sure this is live though.
5. Violins seem a little out of place. Maybe mixed in some samples? Otherwise - live.
6. Live.
7. Uagh. Live. Should've let Williams keep composing for the series though.
8. Too lively and dynamic for samples.
9. Very loveable - pretty sure this is not sampled.
10. Live.
11. See 10. Although the fortepiano in the bass at 00:24 seems a little out of place and the violins following as well - I guess there are some samples mixed in.
12. Live it is.
13. Too lively and fine for sampled instruments. Live.
14. I tried sampling the finale of Mahler's ninth myself - trust me, it's impossible to do convincingly. Live.
15. Too lifelike to be samples. Live.

Pretty sure I'm right 9.5/10th of the time - but hey, I hope I'll be surprised by the end!


----------



## Goran (Oct 11, 2012)

Acall @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> 7. Uagh. Live. Should've let Williams keep composing for the series though.



...LOL :mrgreen: ...thanks for taking the test!


----------



## parnasso (Oct 11, 2012)

First of all, very interesting test, thank you very much for doing this, Goran! You've chosen some really beautiful pieces, it's a pleasure to listen too.

I largely concur with what has been said until now but here are my more detailed thoughts (mainly referring to the strings):

1: real: shaping of notes very musical and lively, for example decrescendi very convincing and very cohesive tuning and sound
2: real: a few slight intonation errrors like 0:29/0:30 in the passage "B-A-G" that don't occur the second time and seem typical small errors of live musicians, playing is of high quality but never exactly the same. To my ears absolutely real.
3: clearly Samples: already the Cello line at the beginning but also everything else sounds quite stiff, also the section sound is not convincing
4: real even though I had some slight doubts at the beginning as It sounded a bit pale. But passages like for example at 0:55-0:58 the "A-B-C#-B-A", especially the crescendo-decrescendo on the C# convinced me that it must be real, there are also some live noises (for example at 0:09)
5: real: very cohesive sound, beautiful note shaping, for example already at the beginning at 0:05-0:07 decrescendo "A-G-F-E", typical noise floor of a recording in a concert hall, at several points one can also hear some breaths
6: real: very convincing already the basses at 0:09/0:10 "B-A" or at 0:17/0:18 and later chromatic descending double stops "A/C-G#/B etc"
7: Strings are real, some of the rest could have been recorded elsewhere or could be samples, woodwinds and Glockenspiel seem to come from a different space and Glockenspiel could certainly be sampled. But maybe it's just an effect of how the mic's were placed and how the mixing was done. In any case it sounds very convincing altogether.
8: real: too beautiful, too musical, too detailed for being samples, absolutely fantastic string sound and the entry of the high G flat of the oboe (I hope it is an oboe…) at 0:36 with its evolving vibrato is breathtaking! But it's already enough to listen to the long F in the violins between 0:03 and 0:06 and how it evolves with cresc.-vibrato-decresc. to be convinced that this is real. I'm very sorry and ashamed to admit that I don't know what piece this is but I really would like to know… judging from the sound and the style of the execution I would guess that it's played by Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic, it is of such a high musicianship and has an incredibly concentrated and sublime way the reach the musical climax… I've heard this sound only from Karajan. Anyway, if this is made with samples I'll bow down in awe…
9: real: also absolutely beautiful and detailed, very cohesive section sound and very convincing vibrato throughout especially in the soft dynamics
10: real: many of the things I said to 8 + 9 apply also here
11: Samples: weak and lifeless Violoncello and oboe
12: real: listen to the passage at 0:20-0:26 "D-E-F-G-E-D-G" with its evolving cresc.-vibrato-decresc. and to all the very convincing swells of the entire string orchestra throughout the piece. Very beautiful.
13: real but the overall orchestral balance seems a bit muddy, woodwinds and brass cover the strings almost entirely in the loud parts
14: real: very convincing note swells for example at 0:15-0:24 the passage "A-G#-F#-E#", especially the soft entrance of the E#, very cohesive section sound
15: rather real: the very beginning is not very convincing, could theoretically be Samples but later on seems real, too many details in the violins from 0:30 on

So that would be only 3 and 11 as Samples in my opinion and I would be very surprised if the strings in the other pieces were Samples… but maybe I underestimate your capabilities… that leads me to another consideration (and please don't get offended by what I'm going to say, I'm convinced you have extraordinary skills as a mock-up artist and I appreciate your work):

The difference in quality, musicality and "realness" between pieces 3 and 11 and the rest of the pieces is so big that I have a hard time believing that you or whoever did the mock-ups 3 and 11 could suddenly make such a better job in all the other examples… if you were capable of doing much better why would you present inferior examples in such a test, no? But I may very well be mistaken and you included 3 and 11 just for fun. That's not to say that 3 and 11 are bad mock-up's, they are certainly well-made considering the limited possibilities of virtual instruments but they can't compare to the other examples in the test. But I say it once again: if any of the other examples are entirely made with sampled strings then I'll bow down in awe


----------



## Goran (Oct 11, 2012)

*@Leo*

Thanks for your detailed answer. I see you are interested in composers/pieces as well, want to send me a pm with a small list of those you recognize?


----------



## Goran (Oct 14, 2012)

First of all, many thanks to all who took the time to make this test – you have been of great help.

There are only two sampled productions here, nr.3 (1st set) & nr.11 (2nd set). Everything else is real orchestra recording (completely).

This would make for 1 completely „correct“ answer, and 2 additional „correct“ answers for the 1st set only. The results are pretty constant with my experience with using these excerpts – professionals (most of the time) get nrs.3 & 11 as sampled (the “accuracy rate” varies depending on the choice of excerpts from these as well as upon the choice of real recording excerpts in a set), non-professionals (including knowledgable classical orchestral music listeners) are usually either clueless or very hesitant - with sampled as well as with real examples.

As far as my sampled excerpts are concerned, I'am also very happy that the great majority of those who took the test considered these to be very high quality work. Even though these are older productions, made with legacy VI-Player and VSL SE patches only, I myself am also still very pleased with them.

However, at this point I have to confess to mischievery – the test was made under false pretenses. What I was (based on my previous experience) mainly interested in, was: how will putting sampled productions which combine some extremely realistic features with some typical “sampled” limitations* reflect upon the perception of real orchestra recordings* – especially when these can exibit some sound/playing properties similar to what we are inclined to identify as being sampled.

In this regard, the results also confirm to the pattern I've observed until now – under such conditions, what is real and what is sampled can become very “fuzzy”. Even with real recordings identified as real, in many cases the final decision is made with reservations and some hesitation. 

Two main lessons I have acquired from these tests are:

a) Our sense of “realness” is extremely contextual and adaptive. What we perceive as real can (up from a certain level) strongly vary depending on the context and circumstances. 

b) Imparting a listener with pre-knowledge and directing his/hers attention to a particular aspect of a recording (such as real/sampled) will inevitably result in a warped perception and a tendency to “overlisten” things (usually in both directions). “Half-blind” tests of this sort are, for this reason, not a very reliable judge of the musical/sound quality of either sampled or real productions, as listener's perception is strongly altered and very different from the way he/she listens to music under “normal” circumstances.

FINAL NOTICE: since many people who took this found it to be both interesting and useful, I'll be happy to post a follow-up to this some time soon (a month or two) using my new demos (when finished). 

In the meantime, those interested can take a listen at this (just finished) Mozart accompaniment, and, if they wish, post a comment (the issue is addressed in the opening post):

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28009


----------



## Goran (Oct 14, 2012)

As many were interested in the pieces and the composers, here is the list for both sets.

1st set:

1 – Franz Schubert / Symphony Nr.10 (unfinished) – Adagio, performed by SWR Rundfunkorchester & Michael Gielen

2 – Felix Mendelssohn / A Midsummer Night's Dream – Ouverture, performed by Orchestre des Champs-Élysées & Phillipe Herreweghe

3 – Felix Mendelssohn / Die Hebriden, performed by VSL SE & myself

4 - Hector Berlioz / L'enfance du Christ – Ouverture to the 2nd Part, performed by Orchestre des Champs-Élysées & Phillipe Herreweghe

5 – Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart / Symphony Nr.41, 2nd Mvt, performed by Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra & Nikolaus Harnoncourt

6 – Felix Draeseke / Gudrun-Ouverture, performed by NDR Radiophilharmonie & Jörg-Peter Weigle

7 – Patrick Doyle / Potter Waltz from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, orchestra & conductor are not known to me

**********************

2nd set:

8 – Anton Bruckner / Symphony Nr.6, Adagio – performed by Münchner Philharmoniker & Sergiu Celibidache

9 – Anton Bruckner / Symphony Nr.9, 1st Mvt – performed by RSO Saarbrücken & Stanislaw Skrowaczewski

10 – Edward Elgar / Enigma Variations, “Nimrod” - performed by Philharmonia Orchestra & Giuseppe Sinopoli

11 – an excerpt from an orchestra piece of mine, performed by VSL SE & myself

12 – Edward Elgar / Serenade for Strings, 2nd Mvt – performed by London Philharmonic & Leonard Slatkin

13 - Anton Bruckner / Symphony Nr.2, Adagio – performed by Hamburger Philharmoniker & Simone Young

14 – Gustav Mahler / Symphony Nr.9, Finale – performed by Cleveland Orchestra & Christoph von Dohnanyi

15 - Anton Bruckner / Symphony Nr.3, Adagio – performed by Münchner Philharmoniker & Sergiu Celibidache


----------



## TGV (Oct 14, 2012)

It's good to have your preconceptions shaken up from time to time. Some things that sounded "samplish" to me, might have triggered that because of the way of recording, or something else I took for granted as being a characteristic of samples.

I can only conclude that the old adage "it sounds good if it sounds good" still holds.


----------



## Goran (Oct 15, 2012)

TGV @ Sun Oct 14 said:


> It's good to have your preconceptions shaken up from time to time. Some things that sounded "samplish" to me, might have triggered that because of the way of recording, or something else I took for granted as being a characteristic of samples.



Exactly. This is pretty much a general tendency I have observed until know and in this test as well. BTW, a tendency to "overlisten" real recordings is actually stronger with professionals - it seems that their accumulated experience with both worlds makes them especially sensitive to everything they know as sounding "sample-ish" (when being told to search for the differences), and they generally have a stronger leaning towards projecting the "sampled"-sounding aspects of a sampled production in a real production exibiting some of the similar traits.


----------



## Blakus (Oct 15, 2012)

Blakus @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> I just had a quick listen to a small excerpt of each example, #3 and #11 stood out to me as samples by doing this. I was really only listening to strings, and a proper listen might change my mind



:mrgreen:
Thanks for doing this Goran, and well done on your pieces. Good fun and interesting.


----------



## TGV (Oct 15, 2012)

Goran @ Mon Oct 15 said:


> they generally have a stronger leaning towards projecting the "sampled"-sounding aspects of a sampled production in a real production exibiting some of the similar traits.


Whereas the general audience cannot distinguish between the New York Philharmonic playing Barber's Adagio for Strings under Bernstein and DJ Tiësto playing his version on a Casio SK-1. They'll probably like the latter one better.


----------



## parnasso (Oct 15, 2012)

Goran, please excuse my late reply, I didn't have time until now.

Thank you very much for revealing the pieces, unfortunately I weren't able to reliably recognize any of the pieces, it's a shame... of course I have already heard the two Schubert and the Mozart symphonies and the Mendelssohn as well, but I didn't remember it. I had imagined that there was a lot of Bruckner in this test but I have to admit that I was never a big fan of him... until now! Some of these pieces you posted are really beautiful, especially examples 8 and 9. I'm going to listen to Bruckner in order to know him better!

So I was wrong with my guess that example n.8 was Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonics, but Celibidache was a genius as well  I remember him conducting the Munich Philharmonic, I've been to his concerts quite a few times as I'm from Munich myself. He had an outstanding musical mind.

Thank you very much for the time and energy you put into this, it's been a very interesting and revealing experience!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 15, 2012)

Goran,

Was this exercise in any way related to your business: digital orchestration? I'm just wondering if this thread's purpose was just for fun, to learn as a group, or to make progress in your work (were we used as a test group without our knowledge)?

Please understand that I simply want to make sure that this is just a fun exercise for our members.


----------



## Goran (Oct 15, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Oct 15 said:


> Goran,
> 
> Was this exercise in any way related to your business: digital orchestration? I'm just wondering if this thread's purpose was just for fun, to learn as a group, or to make progress in your work (were we used as a test group without our knowledge)?
> 
> Please understand that I simply want to make sure that this is just a fun exercise for our members.



Hi Ned,

yes, of course it was related to digital orchestration, as it illuminates the ways we tend to perceive the differences/similarities between real/sampled productions under specific conditions. 

In that sense, I certainly hope this wasn't "just a fun excercise", but that it was also helpful in showing some important traits of our listening psychology.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding your question?


----------



## Goran (Oct 15, 2012)

Blakus @ Mon Oct 15 said:


> Blakus @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a quick listen to a small excerpt of each example, #3 and #11 stood out to me as samples by doing this. I was really only listening to strings, and a proper listen might change my mind
> ...



Very true, but don't you believe for one moment this would mean you would be in principle infallible in this regard :wink: - as a matter of fact, based on my experience it is quite likely that your answer turned out as it did *precisely because* you didn't give it a "proper listen" (for the reasons I've explained above).


----------



## Goran (Oct 15, 2012)

parnasso @ Mon Oct 15 said:


> I had imagined that there was a lot of Bruckner in this test but I have to admit that I was never a big fan of him... until now! Some of these pieces you posted are really beautiful, especially examples 8 and 9. I'm going to listen to Bruckner in order to know him better!



What can I say, I gladly admit to being a Brucknerian _vom Scheitel bis zur Sohle_... 8) ... and am very happy to hear this excerpts incited you to listen to more of his music.



parnasso @ Mon Oct 15 said:


> So I was wrong with my guess that example n.8 was Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonics, but Celibidache was a genius as well  I remember him conducting the Munich Philharmonic, I've been to his concerts quite a few times as I'm from Munich myself. He had an outstanding musical mind.



Lucky you... his belong to my all-time favourite Bruckner recordings. These excerpts are concert recordings from Gasteig (he didn't make studio recordings, at least not during his Munich period), who knows, perhaps you are sitting in the audience in one of these :wink:


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 15, 2012)

KevSharpMinor @ Mon Oct 15 said:


> Also, one guy saying he thought they were ALL samples had me thinking: "Wait, could they really all be samples? What's the rub? Perhaps I'm missing something..."
> 
> Next time I'll trust my instincts more, haha.
> 
> Good string test and psychology test, Goran. o-[][]-o



Ha ha,

I have heard the players breathing here and there, but I thought it was SFX, because I know some people did this trick in the past, and also I know that there are some private libraries out that sound better or much better than what you can buy. 

@Goran: Have you used a reverb on the real recordings?


----------



## lee (Oct 15, 2012)

This was interesting!

Not trying to be a besserwisser, but.. Wasnt the implication that there were hybrid productions unnecessary?


----------



## Goran (Oct 15, 2012)

*@Günther*

No, real recordings weren't meddled with in any way.


*@Lee*

It changes the listening psychology (as was demonstrated by the results) - that's the whole point: when you listen to something with pre-knowledge of this kind, you'll tend to perceive it quite differently then if you were just "listening to music" as you normally do.


----------



## lee (Oct 15, 2012)

Yup, but wouldnt it suffice making people listen hard for all samples music or all live music? That should put enough ghosts in peoples minds (ears) IMO. Just saying..  Anyway, it was a nice experiment.


----------



## Goran (Oct 16, 2012)

lee @ Mon Oct 15 said:


> Yup, but wouldnt it suffice making people listen hard for all samples music or all live music? That should put enough ghosts in peoples minds (ears) IMO. Just saying..  Anyway, it was a nice experiment.



True, however, different ghosts usually work in different directions...


----------

