# Samples vs noteperformer round2



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

So a taste of what's possible. Just a test for balancing and articulations. Both versions had only dynamics AND hairpins. Straight to stereo. The same text markings were used for both :

V1

View attachment Faun Frolics 1.mp3


V2

View attachment Faun Frolics 2.mp3


Best

e


----------



## Rob (Feb 17, 2022)

V1 is NP right?


----------



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

Rob said:


> V1 is NP right?


yes

best

e


----------



## joebaggan (Feb 17, 2022)

NP sounds better. The main difference is that you spent about $10,000 more on the version with samples and many more hours of midi/expression map tweaking.


----------



## Vlzmusic (Feb 17, 2022)

Judging by your previous posts, Ed, I guess the premise here, is that everything is relying on Dorico playback - am I correct? If so, the term "samples" is not so relevant. I have nothing against NP, I am Arne customer and fan since 2006, but "samples" could mean 1000 different things, and if Dorico has some problems with samples playback, thats Dorico problem, not "samples". Pump those notes into Staffpad, and see what comes out.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

joebaggan said:


> NP sounds better. The main difference is that you spent about $10,000 more on the version with samples and many more hours of midi/expression map tweaking.


$10,000 ???...spent twice that on the triangle Library !

e


----------



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

Vlzmusic said:


> Judging by your previous posts, Ed, I guess the premise here, is that everything is relying on Dorico playback - am I correct? If so, the term "samples" is not so relevant. I have nothing against NP, I am Arne customer and fan since 2006, but "samples" could mean 1000 different things, and if Dorico has some problems with samples playback, thats Dorico problem, not "samples". Pump those notes into Staffpad, and see what comes out.


It's really a test of how close I can get to instant gratification when writing Just in the score editor without ANY tweaking as I would do in Sibelius + Noteperformer . Obviously it's NOT lost on me how good a result NOTEPERFORMER actually gets !!!. But it's still a long way to go before i'd send it to a client.

I am now closer to achieving the same result I would in cubase with a LOT of tweakin, Mixing, CC editing etc. In cubase for instance the template was close to 800 tracks with access to all the libraries, and just trying to get a simple flute part right could take a while. 

So what I am after is a score in front of me and nothing but, notes, dynamics and articulation messages and a believable result. 

I'm getting closer

best

e


----------



## Vlzmusic (Feb 17, 2022)

If you after Playback to sent to clients, Staffpad is your friend, believe me. At least till NP 4 comes.


----------



## Markrs (Feb 17, 2022)

Definitely V2 for me, by some margin, though I still think V1does a good job of it


----------



## Jett Hitt (Feb 17, 2022)

What samples are you using here @ed buller? V2 definitely piques one's interest. I am not sure that it is as good as StaffPad in some ways, but in other ways, it is better.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

Jett Hitt said:


> What samples are you using here @ed buller? V2 definitely piques one's interest. I am not sure that it is as good as StaffPad in some ways, but in other ways, it is better.


Strings:
VSL synchron,Spitfire Sym,Spitfire Chamber,Spitfire Appassionato,Berlin ,BBC ,OT Sphere

WW:
VSL Synchron,Berlin,BBC,

Brass:
VSL Synchron,Berlin,Metropolis,BBC

Perc: 
Cineperc,BBC,VSL Harp

Best

e


----------



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

Vlzmusic said:


> If you after Playback to sent to clients, Staffpad is your friend, believe me. At least till NP 4 comes.


nah.....doesn't come close. Levels and sounds are just no comparison for me. I have staffpad. Spent a bunch on the Library. The note entry drives me potty. Big time waster and as good as the sounds are it's not the same. 

best

e


----------



## benwiggy (Feb 17, 2022)

There's clearly a greater dynamic contrast in V2 in the first few bars. That's the one thing I struggle with in Dorico -- getting pianissimos that aren't tooo quiet, but still getting some oompf on a crescendo.

Some libraries seem better than others, of course.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> There's clearly a greater dynamic contrast in V2 in the first few bars. That's the one thing I struggle with in Dorico -- getting pianissimos that aren't tooo quiet, but still getting some oompf on a crescendo.
> 
> Some libraries seem better than others, of course.


C11,and C1......i'm telling you...works a treat

best

e


----------



## benwiggy (Feb 17, 2022)

I've set dynamics to use both those in the Ex maps (for things like OT SINE libraries) -- do you mean manual adjustments on top?


----------



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> I've set dynamics to use both those in the Ex maps (for things like OT SINE libraries) -- do you mean manual adjustments on top?


no , no adjustments. So in the expression maps they are set to ONLY CC1, CC11:





You can fine tune them here. You have to try it out ( as I'm doing ) with bits' of music and different orchestral combo's and colors at different dynamic levels to see what works. Basically you are programing your own NOTEPERFORMER with sample libraries. A constantly reliable,realistic playback template . But you are NOT using Velocity EVER...nor are you writing your own DATA in the play page. It ALL comes from Dynamic markings. 






No other tweaking !

best

e


----------



## dtoub (Feb 17, 2022)

I've had friends compare two versions of a recent string orchestra work of mine, one with the GPO5 strings one can purchase and add into Finale, and one with NP3 via Finale. NP3 won in this case. But sometimes GPO5 wins out. It depends on the specific works.


----------



## JJP (Feb 17, 2022)

What strikes me is the huge difference in orchestral balance between the two. I would have assumed it was two different orchestrations.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

JJP said:


> What strikes me is the huge difference in orchestral balance between the two. I would have assumed it was two different orchestrations.


Yes it’s somewhat alarming. I just swapped the playback engine. The brass mutes are the hardest for me to balance . Something about a lot of the sounds in noteperformer have this piercing fizzyness . they Cut through in a way that just sounds synthetic. The next stage of this process will be mocking up a score against a recording . Then I’ll find out how wack the balancing is. Although truth be told many of my fav orchestral recordings sound like different orchestrations back to back. Some have parts I only hear on THAT recording !

best

e


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Feb 17, 2022)

ed buller said:


> no , no adjustments. So in the expression maps they are set to ONLY CC1, CC11:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the score, are you not adding any custom symbols to this to change the articulations / libraries? Is this really plug-n-play with just notation and dynamic markings?


----------



## ed buller (Feb 17, 2022)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> For the score, are you not adding any custom symbols to this to change the articulations / libraries? Is this really plug-n-play with just notation and dynamic markings?


so The samples are switched by note length . Every instrument has 5 different samples just for that. Switching is automatic. Then I’ve added some text. For pizz,mutes,harmonics. TREM markings trigger different samples too. I’m trying to make it as straightforward as possible. I am still having trouble with Dorico's range in Dynamics. It seems to regard 5 p's and 5 F's as the min and max respectively . Which is a tad silly. 
best

e


----------



## benwiggy (Feb 18, 2022)

ed buller said:


> I am still having trouble with Dorico's range in Dynamics. It seems to regard 5 p's and 5 F's as the min and max respectively . Which is a tad silly.


Tell that to Mahler. 🤣 You know about the Dynamic Curve setting in Playback Options (also as a 'override' in the Ex map)? You can increase the value, which has the effect of making the extreme values occupy a smaller part of the range.

Or, (which from a screenshot you showed, I think you've done) you can set the min and max CC1 and CC11 'in' a bit.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 18, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> Tell that to Mahler. 🤣 You know about the Dynamic Curve setting in Playback Options (also as a 'override' in the Ex map)? You can increase the value, which has the effect of making the extreme values occupy a smaller part of the range.
> 
> Or, (which from a screenshot you showed, I think you've done) you can set the min and max CC1 and CC11 'in' a bit.


yeah...it's still an issue for me. 

best

e


----------



## ptram (Feb 18, 2022)

EDIT: Sorry, Ben answered before me! (I had started writing yesterday, and complete it only today).



ed buller said:


> It seems to regard 5 p's and 5 F's as the min and max respectively . Which is a tad silly.


If you change the dynamic curve value, in the Playback preferences. Depending on the value, the curve becomes less or more S-shaped, and the _pp_ and _ff_ marks become nearer to the dynamic extremes.

Which one is the correct value is a matter or trying it. For classical music with values between _pp_ and _ff_, I usually use 1.9, but other values are better with Bach or contemporary music with more nuances (in this latter case, I usually go nearer a value of 1, compressing the center _mp-mf_ range, and expanding the _pppp-p_ and _f-ffff_ ranges).

Paolo


----------



## ed buller (Feb 18, 2022)

ptram said:


> EDIT: Sorry, Ben answered before me! (I had started writing yesterday, and complete it only today).
> 
> 
> If you change the dynamic curve value, in the Playback preferences. Depending on the value, the curve becomes less or more S-shaped, and the _pp_ and _ff_ marks become nearer to the dynamic extremes.
> ...


yes but the problem is this affects the whole curve. So in effect your overall dynamic range is reduced, I have experimented with loads of different settings. I can find the sweet spot for some samples but NOT all. My Dream is to have individual dynamic markings allocations in the Expression Map Window. So you could basically PRE-SET in both CC's a specific value for THAT samples playback Level In ALL Dynamics

best

e


----------



## benwiggy (Feb 18, 2022)

ptram said:


> I usually use 1.9, but other values are better with Bach or contemporary music with more nuances (in this latter case, I usually go nearer a value of 1, compressing the center _mp-mf_ range, and expanding the _pppp-p_ and _f-ffff_ ranges).


I've used as high as 5 for some cases, where the music only goes between p and f...!


----------



## youngpokie (Feb 18, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> That's the one thing I struggle with in Dorico -- getting pianissimos that aren't tooo quiet, but still getting some oompf on a crescendo.


That's what I noticed too, and it's so frustrating. How are you handling it? 

I've been trying lately to take clarinet as my base for the widest dynamic range and then try to match the range of all other instruments to it - basically by playing with the shape of their S curves in Dorico and in the VST that allow it. So, for example, the ppp of a flute to sound equal to pp of the clarinet and so on. 

Then I'm checking them in mock-up I'm copying in Dorico without touching track offset, a single CC controller or note velocity. (It takes a bit to get to FF and it's made in the headphones - sorry). Been trying this for a couple of weeks, so maybe I'm just wasting time. Worst case, I hope it at least gets me a marginally better template. 



View attachment Tod und Verklarung.mp3


----------



## MauroPantin (Feb 18, 2022)

V2 sounds a bit better, but also has a different balance. As most of you know, NP is as good as it gets for checking balances in orchestration, so no surprises there.

I wonder if there is a way in a DAW to plug the NP stems into some sort of LUFS measuring tool that could then "ride" the trim of their sample counterparts, to match that same LUFS value whilst following the action. You write the piece in Dorico, then export the NP and "Sample" stems, put it in your DAW with that setup and voila! Instant, natural, automatic template balancing and dynamic responses. Or at least as good as NP's. A man can dream. It would probably be iffy, given that timbres, verbs, etc. are different. I might give it a shot with a short piece and report back just for kicks.


----------



## Pat Maddox (Feb 19, 2022)

How do you manage multiple strings libraries? Do you have e.g. a violin section player per library? A single violin player with multiple instruments? Something else?


----------



## ed buller (Feb 19, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> That's what I noticed too, and it's so frustrating. How are you handling it?
> 
> I've been trying lately to take clarinet as my base for the widest dynamic range and then try to match the range of all other instruments to it - basically by playing with the shape of their S curves in Dorico and in the VST that allow it. So, for example, the ppp of a flute to sound equal to pp of the clarinet and so on.
> 
> ...


for me I use CC1 and CC11. Then set the max and min AND play with the curve

best

e


----------



## ed buller (Feb 19, 2022)

Pat Maddox said:


> How do you manage multiple strings libraries? Do you have e.g. a violin section player per library? A single violin player with multiple instruments? Something else?


So in the expression MAP's Each String Section addresses about 30 plus sample playback articulations. They are spread across 10 per section ( 10 VLn1 etc ) in VEP and come from about 6 Libraries . Some of these switches are automatic ( note length, Trems etc ) and the rest come from instrument text like Pizz, or Sul Tasto. 














So in the list Divisi for instance uses Spitfire chamber, The sords are from BBC, Hook Trem's are Berlin

best

e


----------



## ed buller (Feb 19, 2022)

MauroPantin said:


> V2 sounds a bit better, but also has a different balance. As most of you know, NP is as good as it gets for checking balances in orchestration, so no surprises there.
> 
> I wonder if there is a way in a DAW to plug the NP stems into some sort of LUFS measuring tool that could then "ride" the trim of their sample counterparts, to match that same LUFS value whilst following the action. You write the piece in Dorico, then export the NP and "Sample" stems, put it in your DAW with that setup and voila! Instant, natural, automatic template balancing and dynamic responses. Or at least as good as NP's. A man can dream. It would probably be iffy, given that timbres, verbs, etc. are different. I might give it a shot with a short piece and report back just for kicks.


*Unfortunately not. Phase two ( which is looming ) is to do mockups from scores and then try and replicate the balance against quality recordings . That is a bit problematic as I know a lot of recordings have spot mic rides in crucial bit's . The bassoon at the beginning of the Rite of spring, Flute on the opening of L'apres midi d'un faune. *
*I am also not quite so trusting of Noteperformer as some. I find the string divis's much louder than normal and some instruments at certain registers just get lost. There's also this organy tone to the whole thing that I really really strugle with. *​*
This is a mockup of the STAR TREK theme from TMP , straight from the OMNI score. I put this in by hand for shit's and giggels. I can hear what I mean very clearly.

best*

*ed*


View attachment STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE.mp3


----------



## ed buller (Feb 19, 2022)

I also find a bit of scooped mid-range in NP. The brass is thin too. 

NP

View attachment FANFARE NP.mp3


Samples

View attachment FANFARE SMP.mp3


Best

ed


----------



## youngpokie (Feb 19, 2022)

ed buller said:


> for me I use CC1 and CC11. Then set the max and min AND play with the curve


I think with the exception of CC1/CC11 we have the same objective and even some of the steps. Nice!



ed buller said:


> Phase two ( which is looming ) is to do mockups from scores and then try and replicate the balance against quality recordings . That is a bit problematic as I know a lot of recordings have spot mic rides in crucial bit's .


Same. But I found two additional problems in my case: spatial positioning really changes the relative dynamics between instruments, so now I have to do that first and then balance the dynamics second.

The other problem for me was that not a single classical recording I checked against the score respects the written dynamics. Not one! I checked 7 different scores.

Some (like the attempt I posted) only differ from the score in degree: such as p instead of pp in woodwinds, which is not a big deal. But many (most?) others do not and introduce all kinds of additional elements that are not in the score, both dynamics and articulations (especially accents). So picking the wrong reference can send one down a whole other rabbit hole, as I've discovered...


----------



## ed buller (Feb 19, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> I So picking the wrong reference can send one down a whole other rabbit hole, as I've discovered...


Very true. Also bear in mind they really ride the faders in recordings.

best

e


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 19, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> Same. But I found two additional problems in my case: spatial positioning really changes the relative dynamics between instruments, so now I have to do that first and then balance the dynamics second.
> 
> The other problem for me was that not a single classical recording I checked against the score respects the written dynamics. Not one! I checked 7 different scores.
> 
> Some (like the attempt I posted) only differ from the score in degree: such as p instead of pp in woodwinds, which is not a big deal. But many (most?) others do not and introduce all kinds of additional elements that are not in the score, both dynamics and articulations (especially accents). So picking the wrong reference can send one down a whole other rabbit hole, as I've discovered...


So others are searching for the holy grail too! . I'm wondering if its an elusive search or not? How for example are you making dynamic adjustments in Dorico to match your references? Really what we need is a curve editor to shape how each library articulation will respond to written dynamics (ppp, pp, p, mp, mf, etc.). Also, very critical is how Dorico responds to hairpin curves. In Sibelius, if you press Command+Shift+I, you can adjust the dynamic response of each hairpin curve which results in tremendously musical results (best shown in the examples by Marc Bercowitz using just Sibelius and NP3.
).

The question is, can this be done with Dorico? I asked in a Discover Dorico presentation if there was a way to adjust dynamic curves for different libraries and they answered no, but others recognized the value of this and commented. My guess is that it would take a lot of request to get the Dorico developers to add this.

So in the meantime, what is the best way to adjust and compensate for dynamics when comparing against references? Just adjust the playback levels in the mixer? (there's no way to save a snapshot of these is there other than with a template file is there?)

I'm new to all of this, so I hope I'm misguided and those more knowledge will share their methods. I've been very impressed with what Ed and Zolhof have demonstrated so there are clearly ways to improve beyond what I currently know. My first inclination is to adjust dynamic markings directly. If forte is too loud, change it to mezzo-forte. However, this doesn't seem like a good method as we are altering the directions in the score. Adjusting the Mixer volume would seem like a better solution although ideally, I'd like to adjust it in the playback template for each articulation with a curve editor. Are there any other possible solutions I'm overlooking? It would be very easy to get lost chasing down the wrong rabbit hole in this crazy quest for the holy dynamic grail.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 20, 2022)

synergy543 said:


> So others are searching for the holy grail too! . I'm wondering if its an elusive search or not? How for example are you making dynamic adjustments in Dorico to match your references? Really what we need is a curve editor to shape how each library articulation will respond to written dynamics (ppp, pp, p, mp, mf, etc.). Also, very critical is how Dorico responds to hairpin curves. In Sibelius, if you press Command+Shift+I, you can adjust the dynamic response of each hairpin curve which results in tremendously musical results (best shown in the examples by Marc Bercowitz using just Sibelius and NP3.
> ).
> 
> The question is, can this be done with Dorico? I asked in a Discover Dorico presentation if there was a way to adjust dynamic curves for different libraries and they answered no, but others recognized the value of this and commented. My guess is that it would take a lot of request to get the Dorico developers to add this.
> ...



this might be helpful: 

There is also a Properties panel just Like Sibelius although It seems to be more about appearance. I think however if we are getting into so many variables and stages where the levels CAN be adjusted we are sorta missing the point of a reliable simple playback. I guess what I am trying to do is just better noteperformer as a baseline. So sonically I've done that, and Dynamically I am pretty close. Noteperformer is a giant synth so the sounds are in a constant state of flux whereas I am dealing with lots' of tiny short recordings and it's really a case of picking the right one. The hardest thing is the dynamics because simply put there aren't nearly enough. The average in a sample Library is 3, many less a few go to 5. So CC11 is vital. 

In Dorico part of it's strength IS having the Dynamic's as it's OWN lane in the playback page ( currently missing until the next update ) So with this you basically fine tune to your heart's content. 

Your right the mixer can help too...but it's just another point where adjustment can be made AND if your not careful you'll go round in circles. 

best

e


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 20, 2022)

ed buller said:


> There is also a Properties panel just Like Sibelius although It seems to be more about appearance. I think however if we are getting into so many variables and stages where the levels CAN be adjusted we are sorta missing the point of a reliable simple playback. I guess what I am trying to do is just better noteperformer as a baseline. So sonically I've done that, and Dynamically I am pretty close. Noteperformer is a giant synth so the sounds are in a constant state of flux whereas I am dealing with lots' of tiny short recordings and it's really a case of picking the right one. The hardest thing is the dynamics because simply put there aren't nearly enough. The average in a sample Library is 3, many less a few go to 5. So CC11 is vital.
> 
> In Dorico part of it's strength IS having the Dynamic's as it's OWN lane in the playback page ( currently missing until the next update ) So with this you basically fine tune to your heart's content.
> 
> ...


Thanks Ed, I'll check those links. I've also been reading your posts on the Dorico forum and it appears I'm following in your footsteps about six months behind! You've solved many of the problems I'm still confronting.

As for the Sibelius properties panel and adjusting hairpin curves, this really is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, as it determines the interpretive nuances of the playback. It really dramatically affects the emotions of a performance (the human dynamic interpretive aspect that a good player will invoke). I just wish its importance gets recognized by those in power at Dorico. Very few Sibelius users even seem to know about it or how to use it but it makes such a tremendous difference.

Certainly the MIDI CC controls in Dorico 4.010 are extremely nice and will get a lot of use. I think this may be the key to adding expressive nuances into performances in Dorico as opposed to the hairpins (I wonder though how it will interact with hairpin dynamics?).

Thanks for sharing all of your experiences online. This is tremendously helpful. Cheers.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 20, 2022)

synergy543 said:


> As for the Sibelius properties panel and adjusting hairpin curves, this really is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, as it determines the interpretive nuances of the playback. It really dramatically affects the emotions of a performance (the human dynamic interpretive aspect that a good player will invoke). I just wish its importance gets recognized by those in power at Dorico. Very few Sibelius users even seem to know about it or how to use it but it makes such a tremendous difference.


well this is all doable in the play window . Dorico has given you far more control than Sibelius in terms of playback dynamics. Yes in Sibelius you can vary the percentage of any given hairpin affect, but you can also do this on the play page in Dorico where you can just manually put in the curve !. This will override the hairpin in THAT instance...just like Sibelius 

best

ed


----------



## benwiggy (Feb 20, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> The other problem for me was that not a single classical recording I checked against the score respects the written dynamics. Not one! I checked 7 different scores.
> 
> Some (like the attempt I posted) only differ from the score in degree: such as p instead of pp in woodwinds, which is not a big deal. But many (most?) others do not and introduce all kinds of additional elements that are not in the score, both dynamics and articulations (especially accents). So picking the wrong reference can send one down a whole other rabbit hole, as I've discovered...


This is to be expected. A score is not music, in the same way that a script is not the film. *pp* is not a decibel value, but a relative, contextual indication. Mahler's pp is not the same as Bach's.

Music making is what you bring to the score. (In fact, some composers are guilty of trying to convey _too much_ in the score, and 'micro-managing' the performance.)


----------



## ed buller (Feb 20, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> This is to be expected. A score is not music, in the same way that a script is not the film. *pp* is not a decibel value, but a relative, contextual indication. Mahler's pp is not the same as Bach's.
> 
> Music making is what you bring to the score. (In fact, some composers are guilty of trying to convey _too much_ in the score, and 'micro-managing' the performance.)


Very true. Which is why I find some of the comments about noteperformers accuracy with dynamic markings confusing and not particularly helpful.

best

ed


----------



## youngpokie (Feb 20, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> This is to be expected. A score is not music, in the same way that a script is not the film. *pp* is not a decibel value, but a relative, contextual indication. Mahler's pp is not the same as Bach's.


Yes, my point was that _if you want to check your template balance against a recording_ then choose wisely and pick a recording that follows the score instructions as faithfully as possible. How is that wrong?

I have the Mackerras recording of Scheherazade playing as I type this and using that as a reference for balancing the template with that score would be an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## benwiggy (Feb 20, 2022)

But back to NotePerformer. Here's a little something I'm working on atm. Perhaps it doesn't quite have the 'oompf' that samples (or a real performance) would, but it's taken me no work to achieve this:
View attachment Snippet.mp3


----------



## youngpokie (Feb 20, 2022)

synergy543 said:


> My first inclination is to adjust dynamic markings directly. If forte is too loud, change it to mezzo-forte. However, this doesn't seem like a good method as we are altering the directions in the score.


I can only speak to my own experience. When I first started doing this, I was making this type of "revisions" of the dynamics all the time. The result was that when I opened another score, dynamics would get all over the place again and I'd have to repeat the process. I realize now that this is because I had an unbalanced underlying template and it was showing every time an "un-retouched' project was opened.

What I'm doing now is making such changes only where I am quite clear the recording is _not_ following the score in that moment. The mockup I'm working on now (that I posted above) has one instance where I modified the score dynamic (from p to pp for the flute). That's because this passage is used twice in the score and to my ears it's clear it's played differently each time in the recording. 

My current incarnation of the template was first "spatialized", then I used Brant to balance the instruments (amazing resource!) and finally the actual score. I'm also realizing I have to keep going back and tweak things a bit. For example, my instrument positioning is not very good because oboes sound like they are further way than the clarinets. This creates a chain reaction - I have to go back and fix them, then re-check the Brant balance and then come back to the score. 

Obviously for a lot of people this would sound like a nightmare. Surprisingly, I am really enjoying this project and the amount of stuff I've learned makes me feel I've been to school all over again.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 20, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> But back to NotePerformer. Here's a little something I'm working on atm. Perhaps it doesn't quite have the 'oompf' that samples (or a real performance) would, but it's taken me no work to achieve this:
> View attachment Snippet.mp3


Sounds good to me! At least as a musical feedback in the writing process.

The Noteperformer problem is the strings. It's OKish for shorts or tuttis but they never give a nice pad or something magic or elegant. So I find myself avoiding to write such parts with Noteperformer which isn't a good thing!


----------



## youngpokie (Feb 20, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> Perhaps it doesn't quite have the 'oompf' that samples (or a real performance) would, but it's taken me no work to achieve this:


It's really nice. For me, perhaps it just shows my lack of imagination when it comes to writing - I was never able to not get distracted and annoyed by Note Performer sound.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 20, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> But back to NotePerformer. Here's a little something I'm working on atm. Perhaps it doesn't quite have the 'oompf' that samples (or a real performance) would, but it's taken me no work to achieve this:


Great piece. It shows that composition and good orchestration truly reign king.


----------



## Mister Grady (Feb 20, 2022)

benwiggy said:


> But back to NotePerformer. Here's a little something I'm working on atm. Perhaps it doesn't quite have the 'oompf' that samples (or a real performance) would, but it's taken me no work to achieve this:
> View attachment Snippet.mp3


Do you plan on notating the whole scene? ...and are you keeping to Wagner's original notation throughout?


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 20, 2022)

Maybe Mister Grady (with his 3 posts) is Sigfried's caretaker? Looking after Wagner's Götterdämmerun theme? Though I'm not sure Wagner has exclusive rights to all such similar notes. Unless there's more association than I'm aware of. Good artists borrow, great artists....
Leave Benwiggy alone!


----------



## benwiggy (Feb 21, 2022)

Mister Grady said:


> Do you plan on notating the whole scene? ...and are you keeping to Wagner's original notation throughout?


Yes, I'm putting the whole scene (not the whole opera....) into Dorico; original notation and instrumentation throughout. _(Choose ONE trumpet, Richard..!!!)_


----------

