# Midi mockup - "Hedwig's Theme" by John Williams



## Elois (Jan 5, 2020)

-- *Update 06.26.2020* (see post) --




-- *Original Post* --

Hi all,

This is a first attempt at creating a midi mockup, so I would be really glad to discuss on how to improve it !

This was done with SSO in Studio One.

Sound and midi visualization by orchestral section :




Sound only :


----------



## NoamL (Jan 5, 2020)

This is really impressive for a first attempt at a mockup.

I have a lot of notes if you want them - mostly there are a lot of balance issues between instruments, to the point that sometimes certain necessary parts of the music feel buried or absent - but honestly you should just be proud of doing so well on your first attempt, and go on to another piece where you can learn even more.

EDIT: I do recommend a simpler & shorter piece, you can try something like the first two minutes of JW's "Return To Tatooine." That will let you hear much more clearly the necessary balances between winds & strings, and brass & strings, if you listen to the orchestral recording. The MIDI for Return To Tatooine is floating around the internet, I'm sure you can get it from the same place you downloaded that Hedwig MIDI  "Across the Stars" would be another good one.


----------



## Elois (Jan 6, 2020)

Thanks for your reply NoamL , this is encouraging ! I am certainly interested in your notes on balance issues and will check this "Return To Tatooine" theme.

I must admit notes are entered one by one based on a pdf score, which probably isn't efficient. But since each articulation is on its own track, I thought copy/pasting midi file parts would be as fastidious, which may be wrong.

I struggled a bit with creating smooth dynamics transitions between short and long articulations (furthermore one being controlled by velocity, the other by modwheel).

Also, I wonder how to create realistic transitions between group of legato notes (changing bow direction for strings or tonguing for winds/brass). I used short articulations with different dynamics at beginning of phrases to simulate that, but it sounds a bit unnatural (especially in runs).

SSO's parameters are barely modified (mics are all at "ambient", only used modwheel for dynamics) and no mixing/equalization has been applied (since I have to learn all of this stuff).


----------



## monsieurmickey (Jan 6, 2020)

Really good work!


----------



## Elois (Jan 7, 2020)

Thank you monsieurmickey


----------



## Elois (Feb 16, 2020)

Edit : Just added midi visualization by orchestral section :


----------



## osum (Feb 16, 2020)

That sounds very well done to me. (and damn I love that score)

I would also be interested in NoamL's notes.


----------



## Boberg (Feb 17, 2020)

osum said:


> That sounds very well done to me. (and damn I love that score)
> 
> I would also be interested in NoamL's notes.



I second that. Great job, sounds great to me, but it would be interesting to hear what @NoamL has so say more in detail.


----------



## Elois (Feb 28, 2020)

Thank you @osum and @Boberg


----------



## MauroPantin (Feb 28, 2020)

A great first stab. I must say, though, the brass seems quite low in terms of balance, and some other instruments seem too prominent. At least that's the thing that I hear consistently throughout.

Brass is the most powerful section of an orchestra. As per the Rimsky-Korsakov ratios generally, at forte:

1 Trumpet = 1 Trombone = 1 Tuba = 2 French Horns
1 French Horn = 2 Woodwinds = 1 String Section (V1 or V2, etc)

If you go to a lower dynamic like p woodwinds and strings are close to 1:1 ratio.

This is not exact of course, but it is a great rule of thumb... Just make sure to take it with a grain of salt because it also depends on the part of the range of the instrument being played, string section size, etc.


----------



## sluggo (Feb 28, 2020)

Regardless of the result, inputing every note from that piece, one by one, is a tremendous task and an amazing way to get inside the head of the composer. Major props on discipline for that alone.


----------



## Elois (Apr 30, 2020)

Thank you @MauroPantin and @sluggo.

@MauroPantin : are there parts where quietness of brass (or loudness of other instruments) is especially noticeable ? At moments, some brass instruments are near their maximum dynamics, I guess all other sections should be lowered to bring brass forward. Also, for all instruments, only "Tree" mics are used. Perheaps adding a bit of "Close" would help bring them forward too.

@sluggo : Learning how DAW and the library work was a big part of it, I wish I spent more time analyzing the score in terms of its harmonies, counterpoint and orchestration. It was done of course to a certain extent but discovering midi inputing, DAW features, articulations and balancing eluded that a bit. Also, I hope Studio One will benefit from some kind of articulation manager (as expression maps in Cubase), expecting it to alleviate the workflow somehow.


----------



## MauroPantin (Apr 30, 2020)

Elois said:


> @MauroPantin : are there parts where quietness of brass (or loudness of other instruments) is especially noticeable ? At moments, some brass instruments are near their maximum dynamics, I guess all other sections should be lowered to bring brass forward. Also, for all instruments, only "Tree" mics are used. Perheaps adding a bit of "Close" would help bring them forward too.



The room sound seems great, so I would try adding the close mics as a last resort if nothing else works first. I listened to it a couple of times and here's a small list of stuff that jumps out. But please know that this is intended as constructive criticism and you've done an amazing job already!

1- Celesta starts great but seems a bit high in the mix when the violin runs come in at 0:35 and throughout the first presentation of the melody (Bar 44). On the other hand, the balance between woodwinds and strings seems spot-on here.

2- Harp gliss at 1:14 is too high and the horns that come in right after with the reprise of the melody are too low (Bar 75). If I'm not mistaken those are supposed to be horns a4, so they need to come forward quite a bit. The timbre seems fine, but the volume is not. You could add a trim plugin to those instruments to bring them up or if it is consistent with the entire brass section and you are dynamically maxed out then the best approach is to lower everything else. Try to use VCA faders so that you don't lose the balance you've already achieved for the rest of the orchestra.

3- At 1:25 there is a new dynamic marking or some automation in the violas that makes the part jump out quite a bit (Bar 86)

4- The part at 1:31 has a great balance overall, spot-on (Bar 92). Keep that balance no matter what! Check the length of the trumpet notes at 103, I think those might be a tad short

5- Same thing at 1:55, great celesta sound. This would be bar 108.

6- The section at bar 126 is probably the hardest part to mock-up of this entire piece. Here, the woodwinds seem too prominent. It also needs to have a bigger crescendo. Again, if you are already maxed out the best approach is to lower the dynamics at the start of this part to make sure it ramps up a lot more, I would ride CC1 and CC11 together like there's no tomorrow. If there's any place to get close to maxing out the orchestra it is this bit and the part that comes next. Still, I think the dynamic is f or f+ in the original one. Williams is not about putting the orch in blastissimo, it's about the dynamic contrast.

7- Immediately after, at 129 the brass needs to be a lot more prominent.

8- Harp glisses at 143 are too high as well. They are probably in the right dynamic but I say that pretty consistently and throughout the piece the harp needs to be pushed back into the room.

9- Bar 155 should be balls to the wall as well, it seems too low. But the part starting in bar 159 is good.

10- The crescendo from 163 to 165 should also be more dynamic. The balance seems okay (except for the Harp as mentioned before) but the dynamic shift is not as big as it should be.

11- At 173 the strings are a bit high

12- The section at 177 shows that there's some balancing issue going on with the horns. The stac samples sound great and at the correct dynamic but the longs do not. Try to switch the longs to marcatos or rebalance those 2 articulations

13- At 186 there should be a crescendo towards 188 and the section in 188 sounds a bit flat, needs more dynamics, that entire part up to 194 I believe is full of cresc-dim. The same thing happens with the cresc up to 194. It starts great, but at the end when it seems like it should push a bit more it seems to land too soft.

14- The string triplets need to come up a bit for the part at 194.

15- Bar 198 should also be more powerful. The trumpets seem to be right there, but the volume of the rest of the brass appears to be too low. The melody gets lost during the first part until the chromatic ascending and descending line of the trumpets.

16- Same thing with 205. I don't own SSO so maybe there's a limitation to that top dynamic layer but it doesn't seem like it in the trumpets and the final chords at 210 and 214 seem right on the money


It occurs me one final thing would be to check that you are not limiting or compressing the signal too hard on your master bus or somewhere else, something like that could be happening (although I don't hear any distortion and it is not evident in the last tutti chords, so not my first guess) but the dynamics seem a bit squashed at a few points like the orchestra is trying to get to "ff" but can't for some reason. Again, I don't own SSO so I'm not sure if it's a limitation. It just seems like dynamics need to be ampler, if you are using only CC1 I would try to ride CC11 as well to get that amplitude. If that's not enough then I would also ride CC7, which I know seems like a crime and should be done carefully so as not to throw everything out of whack, but you gotta do what you gotta do to. A bit of DAW automation for the main melody parts could also help.

If you need more bit out of your brass you could add Xfer OTT to them, it's a free plug that (used with taste and caution) can add that extra top bite that is sometimes missing.

To sum it up, I would re-balance the brass and harp, introduce some more dynamic amplitude and maybe even automate the tempo a bit to humanize the arrangement (nothing too drastic, a beat per minute extra here, a beat per minute less there). But I would also be immensely proud of the achievement you got here! You have done a fantastic job! Not to mention the patience for inputting all of this manually. Kudos!


----------



## Elois (May 1, 2020)

Thanks a lot @MauroPantin for taking time to listen to the mockup again and providing such detailed feedback, this is very helpful.

No compression or any effect has been added (I have to learn how to properly use these), and dynamics are indeed only controlled by CC1. I hope more dynamic range can be achieved by properly riding CC1 alone, and if not I really have to learn how to use this CC11 (and also CC7, which I don't know yet). Crescendos indeed fall flat and do not much convey a sense of climax.

15 : it really sounds as if I forgot the melody at trombones and tubas, will check this !

Thank you again and hope to post an update soon ^^


----------



## CT (May 1, 2020)

I think Noam and everyone else have already given you great pointers about how to polish things up, but I wanted to say that there's undeniably a great sense of musicality present in this, which one doesn't necessarily hear that often in the mock-up world. 

Combined with the tips given here, I think that will make you pretty formidable at this stuff!


----------



## MauroPantin (May 1, 2020)

Elois said:


> Thanks a lot @MauroPatin for taking time to listen to the mockup again and providing such detailed feedback, this is very helpful.
> 
> No compression or any effect has been added (I have to learn how to properly use these), and dynamics are indeed only controlled by CC1. I hope more dynamic range can be achieved by properly riding CC1 alone, and if not I really have to learn how to use this CC11 (and also CC7, which I don't know yet). Crescendos indeed fall flat and do not much convey a sense of climax.
> 
> ...



My pleasure!

Regarding control changes, CC11 is expression, and CC7 is the volume (for most sample libraries, anyway). The difference with CC1 is that it not only affects the volume but also the timbre of the instrument when it changes the dynamic layer. This is unique to CC1. CC11 and CC7 are there more for volume control. Another option is to automate volumes in your DAW but I tend to leave the faders at unity or a few dB below consistently across the board, that way I know that the template is always balanced, that I have enough headroom, and that there are no weird shenanigans happening with gain staging.

CC11 allows you to re-introduce the amplitude of the dynamic range of an instrument. Sample libraries tend to be compressed a bit when they are recorded and processed. So it is very useful to know when to use that envelope instead of the mod wheel. For instance, in the horns a4 part with the reprise of the melody the timbre is right where it should be, with a bit of that forte buzz. So you would normally avoid moving the mod wheel there and would instead edit just the volume using CC11 to increase the perceived loudness and keep the quality of the sound. At the start of my template, all CC11s are set to about 90, so as to have leeway to go up or down when I need that.

CC7 is volume and basically does the same thing as expression, but most people reserve CC7 as a template balancing resource. So you set it when you balance your template and then leave it there unless you really, really need more movement. If you do the math and consider that you have 3 basic volume controls (CC1, CC11, and CC7) and think of them as a number between 0 and 1 you start to get a feeling of how much more juice you can get out of the sample library:

With only the mod wheel you would be limited to a number between 1 and 0, subdivided into 128 bits of MIDI data, your 128 steps of the mod wheel. So 128 possible values.

If you introduce another element like CC11, you get 1/128 times 1/128, which is 16384 possible combinations. Of course, no library has 128 dynamic layers (yet!), they increase the gain as CC1 goes up, but at least this allows for much finer control and is good enough for most situations.

If you also use CC7 you are talking about over 2 million possible "volume levels" (although in fairness, it does not exactly work that way because of the logarithmic nature of human volume perception, in reality about half of those values are so close together that they are completely imperceptible even in ideal conditions and thus, useless). The point that the more CCs you can add, the more variance you can get out of dynamics, and as far as I understand it that's like the master bedroom in MTV Cribs, it's where the magic happens.

I look forward to a new version! Cheers


----------



## Elois (May 2, 2020)

Thanks for your nice comment @miket. I'm looking forward to working on the given advices ^^

Thanks for the detailed explanation @MauroPantin, that's much clearer. I still have to experiment with those of course.


----------



## Elois (Jun 26, 2020)

Hello,

@MauroPantin : I took some time to work on the given advices, here is an updated version :



I hope the balance improved a bit ! Maybe crescendos could be even more convincing since I only rewrote CC1 (was hesitating between editing CC11 per track VS main bus volume automation).

I'm not sure how to qualify this, but the mockup sounds a bit muddy or "low-pass" filtered compared with original (not sure in which frequencies exactly, have to train ear !) : could this be due to room build up with stacking wet samples ? Does EQ seem appropriate in this case ?


----------



## MauroPantin (Jun 26, 2020)

Hello Elois!

Thanks for the heads up. I think this is much better in terms of balance. The instruments are better placed dynamically in their relation to one another. You got yourself a balanced template, I believe. I think the trumpets, in particular, are sounding stellar.

You are right though in that there is a bit of muddiness there that wasn't there before. There are a lot of possible options for this. Since I don't have SSO I'll just cite the most likely culprits as far as my knowledge allows. Someone more experienced with engineering can surely provide better or more accurate advice. In my experience that kind of "masking" usually comes from mid-low end buildup. 

1- The arrangement can sometimes be at fault but we all know that's not the case here, this is JW.

2- It COULD that the instruments occupying that 250hz to 600hz or so are too high in the mix (ie, slightly out of balance). They could sound perfectly fine in their dynamic relationship to one another but sometimes it's just a little bit that is almost imperceptible on individual instruments but rears its head in the full mix. The solution to try would be to simply trim each instrument that has a fundamental in that range. Start small, like 0.5db of each at the most. If at any point the arrangement goes from "muddy" to "empty" then that wasn't it.

3-The other option is not great news: As far as I understand it, SSO is completely wet and requires hardly any added reverb. This is great in terms of preserving a cohesive room sound but it has a drawback, which is that you get no control over the reverberations. Most of the time, you would apply both high pass and low pass filters to the reverb aux. Or at least I do and exactly for that reason, to help control some of the rumbles. I start with a High Pass at around 600hz and a Low Pass at around 10-11k and move from there. I rarely touch the high pass, but the low pass I adjust depending on the amount of "shimmer" I need. If you have any extra reverb going on, this is something to try. 

4- If you don't have any extra reverb maybe high passing the instruments according to their range? It's kind of a shot in the dark, though. I doubt Spitfire failed to address this by applying noise reductions of some kind to their samples, but you never know.

I also hear sometimes what sounds like a compressor hitting the brakes at a couple of points here and there, like at 3:14 in the trumpets? Those staccato notes in the trumpets repeating the B section motive, it sounds like a compressor is squashing them down, they just go down in volume very briefly for a couple of notes. Do you have any kind of hard limiting going on? If so, proper gain staging is very, very important. It could also be the velocity but for what I can see in the original video it seems to be even in that part, unless it is one of the updates. 

IF there is some hard limiting or compression happening (if you're close to 0db on any of your track meters or plugins, particularly on the soft sections of the piece) this would be something to check for, and I think it would be the first thing to check for actually. I only mention this one because it could be also mudding up your mix, so instead of high passing every instrument, reverb filtering and going down a very frustrating rabbit hole, simply checking your gain staging and pulling back your limiter could save you hours. If you can and know how to do it, it would be interesting to check the "range" value of the piece as measured by any loudness analyzer (in LUFS). If you don't have one, Melda Production has a suite of free plugins and one of them allows you to measure this, it's the MLoudnessMeter or something to that effect. The "range" value of a meter placed as the last plugin in your chain would be the best way to measure dynamic contrast. I would aim for something in the 13-9 LUFS range.


----------



## Elois (Jun 26, 2020)

Thanks for your feedback and detailed answer !

Since no reverb, compressor or limiter (or any effect) have been applied, I'll investigate options 2 and 4 about balance and EQ.

Trumpets at 3:14 seem to disappear because of velocity (if I kept the same velocity value, it sounded mechanical, so a bit of CC11 may help here !).

I just did the LUFS measurement (attached file) : it seems outside the usual range, even if it doesn't sound obvious to me when listening. EDIT : Wrong measurement, see next posts !


----------



## MauroPantin (Jun 26, 2020)

You know... that is interesting. The first thing that jumps out is that the true peak is at 8db. I'm not sure what software or plugin that is so maybe there's a negative there that I am not seeing in the screenshot? If not, positive 8db true peak is waaaay above the recommended range for a digital medium. It should be no higher than 0db, and even then maybe -1db because there is an error margin of about 0.6db. It's the only way to ensure there is no distortion.

That could actually be the source of the issue. Because of the loudness wars, streaming services will not allow you to go too loud on their platforms, and that includes YouTube. They use various algorithms to keep audio in check. Unfortunately, YouTube does not disclose theirs. It is very likely that the 8db true peak comes from very short transients that don't represent the rest of the piece, but YouTube just adds gain reduction and/or compression to it because of them.

Just for comparison sake: I just had a look at my copy of the song, I have a reference track for Hedwig's that I check for the dynamics of my own template since it is so varied between soft and strong moments. I think it is a great piece to check that kind of stuff. The reference I use is from the EPICS album by Erich Kunzel and the Cincinnati Pops. I use that reference specifically because it is an audiophile kind of edition (it was an absolute pain in the ass to get my hands on it in Argentina but it was well worth it) and there's hardly any compression or processing on these recordings, it has been as close as I have heard a CD get to the real orchestra experience.

So anyway all of that is to let you know I am not looking at the album version of it or a streamed version, but rather one that has (I believe) a more preserved dynamic range that closely resembles listening to this piece live (I've seen it live to projection so I'm quite positive on this). It sounds very musical and conveys a lot of energy. I have measured it using EBU as the standard and the copy I have shows (measured after the entire piece, at the hit of the last chord):

True Peak: -0.1db
Integrated loudness: -18.6 LUFS
Range: 9.1 LU

For comparison, I listened on YouTube to the last one you posted and measured. Again, after the entire song, at the hit of the last chord, I have:

True Peak: -3db
Integrated: -17.4 LUFS
Range: 10.6 LU

Originally you were at -10 LUFS for integrated loudness. Which brings me to believe that there are some weird shenanigans going on between the time you bounced the track and the time we get to hear it on YT. The integrated loudness seems to be quite lower. YT is applying quite a bit of gain reduction to your piece, and possibly compression, too.

To solve this I think the best thing to try would be to apply your own compression before YouTube does, that way you get some control over the settings. I would try to get the true peaks at -1db by adding a 2:1 compressor on the master bus with a 20-40 ms attack and adjusting the threshold until you get 1 or 2db of gain reduction. If you get distortion or any weird artifacts, or if even at 0db threshold you still get gain reduction on the compressor then you dial the orchestra down, preferably using a VCA to ensure the relative volumes are preserved, until you hit that mark.

Some people would strongly disagree with this advice, it's a technique called top-down mixing where you start with a bit of compression on the mix bus before you adjust everything else. I think it is sensible to do so, but I am not a mixing engineer and my opinion carries little weight on the matter, I just know it works for me.

Anyway... I would pursue that avenue. I think your mockup is great in terms of performance and general orchestral balance at the moment. There are a few sections, particularly the celeste and the violin runs that follow that show great craftmanship, very musical!


----------



## Elois (Jun 27, 2020)

Thanks again for your exhaustive answer !

My loudness measurement was incorrect (I should have spent more time learning how to use before posting !), here are the rectified values :


*Before mixdown (DAW playback)*
True peak : 5,5 dB
Integrated loudness : -13,7 LUFS
Range : 24.1 LU

*Mixdown*
True peak : 0.2 dB
Integrated loudness : -13,7 LUFS
Range : 23.8 LU

*YouTube version*
True peak : 0.2 dB
Integrated loudness : -13,6 LUFS
Range : 24.1 LU


_(Hedwig's theme reference track :
True peak : -0.2 dB
Integrated loudness : -16,6 LUFS
Range : 21.9 LU)_

No difference between mixdown and YouTube version (I don't get the same values as you though). A difference between playback and mixdown due to short transients (the 5,5dB peak appears only at last tutti chord) being clipped I suppose.

I will experiment with your solution (compression - limiter perheaps ?- or dialing down orchestra) to remove the peak of the last tutti chord without making soft sections too quiet, and without losing too much dynamics. Perheaps I shouldn't have maxed out CC1 to all the tracks...

On another matter, I'll investigate mid-low end build up to possibly have a clearer mockup.


----------



## MauroPantin (Jun 27, 2020)

Hmmm. That's odd. I'll re-measure tomorrow and get back to you.

Just out of curiosity, what measuring tool are you using, and under what standard/setting?



Elois said:


> Perheaps I shouldn't have maxed out CC1 to all the tracks...



Nothing wrong with this, provided you leave enough headroom at the end. A 5.5db True Peak is too high, even if it's just the last chord. 

Make sure to use a VCA to turn it all down, if you can. It will preserve the relationships between instruments. If you go about it by trimming everything by 3db the results might not be as consistent.


----------



## Elois (Jun 28, 2020)

Measurements were made with Izotope Insight 2 trial, no standard being set. I did the measurements again this morning with Studio One loudness meter, set with R128 standard, and got about the same results :


*Before mixdown (DAW playback)*
True peak : 5,53 dB
Integrated loudness : -14.6 LUFS
Range : 25.6 LU

*Mixdown*
True peak : 0.6 dB
Integrated loudness : -13,7 LUFS
Range : 26.8 LU

*YouTube version*
True peak : 0.61 dB
Integrated loudness : -13,6 LUFS
Range : 26.8 LU


_(Hedwig's theme reference track :
True peak : -0.28 dB
Integrated loudness : -16,6 LUFS
Range : 22.4 LU)_



MauroPantin said:


> Make sure to use a VCA to turn it all down, if you can. It will preserve the relationships between instruments. If you go about it by trimming everything by 3db the results might not be as consistent.



Oh I have not touched console faders (all at 0dB), so I suppose I can simply lower main bus by a few dBs..


----------



## MauroPantin (Jun 28, 2020)

Elois said:


> Oh I have not touched console faders (all at 0dB), so I suppose I can simply lower main bus by a few dBs..



Yep, you said you had no processing so I think that would work. But be sure to keep in mind for the future that if you do that, and you have any reverbs in aux sends or other processing it could affect the balance. That's why it's always better to do VCAs, complicated as they may seem. Once you have them on your template you don't have to worry about that anymore.

If you are going to do it on the final mix bus and that includes the reverb aux, then proper gain staging would be checking to make sure that at no point in any of the signal path there's anything clipping over 0db, from the VI all the way to the mix bus. Sometimes you can be clipping on the send to the mix bus, or before that, and trick yourself by just lowering the fader on the mix bus, while at the same time the first plugin (pre-fader) in some track, somewhere, is getting hit hard and clipping without notice. Headroom is really important, you can always add gain or compression to the full mix later down the road.

I'll sit down and measure again tonight and let you know what I have here. It's odd that we have different readouts using the same standard. I'll try it out with a few different measurement plugs just in case.


----------



## vsti (Jun 29, 2020)

Very good work.

Please tell me what SSO is. Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra?

Cheers


----------



## Vladimir Bulaev (Jul 1, 2020)

vsti said:


> Please tell me what SSO is. Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra?


As far as I know, this is Spitfire Symphony Orchestra.
Spitfire Symphonic Strings or Spitfire Chamber Strings
Spitfire Symphonic Woodwinds
Spitfire Symphonic Brass
Spitfire Percussion

Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra (FREE Orchestral Sample Library)! obviously not capable of a similar level of realism.


----------



## vsti (Jul 1, 2020)

Vladimir Bulaev said:


> Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra (FREE Orchestral Sample Library)! obviously not capable of a similar level of realism.



It wasn't so obvious to me,  thanks @Vladimir Bulaev


----------



## Elois (Jul 1, 2020)

Vladimir Bulaev said:


> As far as I know, this is Spitfire Symphony Orchestra.



Yes, this is it !


----------

