# To use expression maps OR one articulation pr. track like A.K. Dern



## stigc56

Hi
I have been using expression maps fora LONG time. But as many other here I have been watching the YT videos by Anne-Kathrin Dern, where she among other things - a lot of other things - praise the one articulation pr. track idea.
I can see the point in her arguments, but when watching her video about wood winds, where she presents the Berlin WW as her favourite, I can only see 2 tracks for the ex. flutes, a legato and a staccato.
What about all the other articulations?
I mean in Spitfire Symphonic Strings there are 31 different articulation for 1st violins! That sums up to around 150 tracks for this library alone. And then there are Spitfire Chamber Strings, and VSL Synchron Strings PRO!!!
How is this done?


----------



## Uiroo

My track list is already at the limit for what my screen has to offer, I imagine working with a track-per-articulation approach to be really annoying and unpractical.

But for mixing its much better obviously, and you can have delay compensation for every articulation.
I'd be curious to see what the workflow is with that approach, and how to overcome the problem of having 10x the track count.


----------



## Alex Fraser

You can always use both? Maps for the tracks which benefit from switching, and single articulation tracks for - say - extended ostinatos which may need extra mix juice.

You could also set up a system whereby you hide the tracks you're not using, coupled with dynamic plugin loading (Logic) or the similar system that Cubase has.


----------



## Tfis

stigc56 said:


> What about all the other articulations?


Maybe she doesn't need them?


----------



## MauroPantin

I use one art per track. I used to have expression maps and what not (the equivalent for them in Reaper, anyway). And it worked OK, but I want to layer multiple articulations sometimes and that was a pain. I also don't want to spend time clicking around for the correct art, it takes a ton of work to maintain a template with those... any change to the template has an impact... it's just easier and faster to add a track and get going with the writing. As long as everything is bussed correctly you are good.

I do find that it is important to manage screen space a bit more, though, so my touchscreen can filter and show or hide track groups for specific instrument families or for unused tracks and things of that nature.


----------



## MauroPantin

Sorry, double posting here to address something I missed:



stigc56 said:


> What about all the other articulations?
> I mean in Spitfire Symphonic Strings there are 31 different articulation for 1st violins! That sums up to around 150 tracks for this library alone. And then there are Spitfire Chamber Strings, and VSL Synchron Strings PRO!!!
> How is this done?


You add them as you need them. 

I started my template with shorts and longs (legato and stac or whatever you deem basic when you do it). As I advance through a project, I duplicate those tracks to retain bussing and FX processing, but I add other articulations. And then when I finish a project, I duplicate the project file, remove all session data and just keep the tracks, save that as the latest version of my template. 

With this method and over time, you start to accumulate articulations on your template. The ones you really use, that is. Otherwise, adding every single articulation for every single library right at the get go... that's just a recipe for madness IMO. Some people do it but it ends up in a ridiculous track count for a template that is probably impossible to balance correctly. My phylosophy here is that I should add what I really need, and keep what I really use.


----------



## Markrs

Not sure if it is madness or not but I am currently creating a track for every articulation in BBCSO for Reaper. I will then create Track templates for both instruments and sections which can then be used in the master template. It is rather boring doing it, but now I have started it I feel the need to complete it. Later on I might add in all the track delays as well.

I don't think I will be doing the same for EW Hollywood Orchestra as I sure the strings alone would drive me to madness!


----------



## MauroPantin

Markrs said:


> I don't think I will be doing the same for EW Hollywood Orchestra as I sure the strings alone would drive me to madness!


Curious that you mention that one in particular because that's the library I was mainly thinking about, lol!


----------



## Crossroads

I use a hybrid approach. I have a track for long artics, short artics, and fx. This keeps mixing flexible and layering doable, yet at the same time I don't have 1500 track templates. Life is good, in that way.


----------



## Waywyn

Not using keyswitches or expression maps give you the freedom to, for example, layer marc, sustain and stacc samples to create some cool combo sounds that let you play everything you need in realtime.

I personally think that keyswitches and expression maps make lots and lots of sense when you are about to arrange track that has to be recorded with real orchestra but you want to give the client a rough preview, ... but not when trying to create a good mockup.


----------



## pawelmorytko

Waywyn said:


> Not using keyswitches or expression maps give you the freedom to, for example, layer marc, sustain and stacc samples to create some cool combo sounds that let you play everything you need in realtime.
> 
> I personally think that keyswitches and expression maps make lots and lots of sense when you are about to arrange track that has to be recorded with real orchestra but you want to give the client a rough preview, ... but not when trying to create a good mockup.


Yep I feel the same way, plus keyswitches and expression maps don't work as well when working with tracks that have articulations layered from different libraries. Trying to go from longs/sustains to tremolo on CSS with a layer of SCS in the same kontakt instance is just not going to be as easy/simple as just having a longs track and a tremolo track. 

Not to mention that different artics can call for different processing which also doesn't make sense to me as to why you'd have them all on one track using key switches/expression maps. Maybe the shorts need less reverb? Maybe one articulation has some mids you want to remove with eq? So you have to sacrifice all of the other articulations just to edit that one issue? 

And on top of that is the issue for me personally of never knowing what is playing what articulation and where. At least with a track per articulation i know where the string trills are instantly just by looking where the strings trills track has a midi region.


----------



## stigc56

Okay.
I'm sitting here installing Berlin Woodwinds Revive.
I have been using articulations maps for many years and just lately I have been aware about the problems with track delays. So many comments about this problem suggest to combine a pr. track/art solution with a articulation switch based. But I fear that this will leave me with the worst of both solutions. Also, how can I combine this set-up with a Kontakt set-up in my VEPro frame?

Orchestral Tools "shines" with leaving all this "boring" set-up work to their customers, claiming that there are not one solution that fits al, I suppose, and they might be right. But I must say that a selling point for companies producing libraries, is ease of set-up. And in this regard OT is behind.

When I buy a library for around 650€ I just WANT ALL the articulations in my set-up. So how is this possible in Berlin WW?
I can load all the piccolo articulations into Kontakt separate, this will give me 13 separate articulations, addressed by 13 midi channels, and with 12 instruments in the library it will take up 12 midi ports!
The other way is to combine some of the articulation in a multi. This will give you fewer slots in Kontakt, but you will have to create the set-up your self. 

I have 4 or 5 woodwinds libraries and if each of these articulations will take up a midi port, I will need around 50 ports!
I also use VSL string libraries, Spitfire string libraries, LASS string libraries and so on. They have so many MORE articulations, it's simply not a viable solution to address each of their articulations with a separate track.
So if anyone have a WORKING set-up, that combines these two ways it really would be nice to have details.


----------



## InLight-Tone

The whole splitting out the Shorts from the Longs is quite maddening. Sure when the shorts are routed separate, and put in a smaller to no reverb, there is much more clarity in hearing them with less smearing and ringing and you can time delay individual tracks.

I see the advantage in that it allows experimentation of layering of different articulations from the same or different libraries with ease. I think if you're aiming for realism, keyswitches are your friend.

On the other hand, just think of a metal guitar player and routing his short chunks separate from sustained chords, never gonna happen.

I just layed out 1600+ individual articulations in Cubase using disabled tracks to try out this method. I am questioning my sanity. I haven't even gone through and routed them to the proper group tracks and reverb yet...


----------



## jononotbono

InLight-Tone said:


> On the other hand, just think of a metal guitar player and routing his short chunks separate from sustained chords, never gonna happen.


I understand what you’re saying and why you would compare but the reality is this is not the same as splitting out short notes of string libraries.

Splitting them out from the longs is because of mixing engineers needing to use different reverb timings because shorts and longs produce much different tail timings.

when you play a guitar and you’re going through an amp and with whatever effects. There’s no difference in room reverb tails between short notes and sustained playing. 

But yeah, splitting stuff out is annoying. Until a template is setup. Then it’s no big deal really


----------



## InLight-Tone

Does that go for Brass and Winds as well, or is this a modern need spurred on by endless String Ostinatos?

It does make sense to me and how I write though. I'm guilty of using a single articulation and I like that I can layer notes and lines at will with other articulation for different effects. I'm not going for a realistic orchestra sound whatsoever.

OK, I'll plow onward then. I remember you saying you were going to expression maps at some point. Did you continue on that path?


----------



## jononotbono

InLight-Tone said:


> Does that go for Brass and Winds as well, or is this a modern need spurred on by endless String Ostinatos?
> 
> It does make sense to me and how I write though. I'm guilty of using a single articulation and I like that I can layer notes and lines at will with other articulation for different effects. I'm not going for a realistic orchestra sound whatsoever.
> 
> OK, I'll plow onward then. I remember you saying you were going to expression maps at some point. Did you continue on that path?


Yes, this applies to Brass and Winds too.

I put off using expression maps on hold a while ago because I couldn’t offset timings. Or at least couldn’t figure any way out. 

However, I’ve been trying to figure out a way to do this and so far I’ve started using a delay plugin on audio output channels on each art in VEPro and this sorts everything out (excluding legatos - of which that CSS might be able to be used). However, performance (as in playing live) there’s all sorts of delay latency so it’s not exactly ideal. So it means turning on the plugins and then turn them off. It’s all quite a big hassle. 😂 

I’m also about to beta test some new touchscreen software so I have been waiting for that before ploughing more time into any of this. If I was using Expression Maps, I would only do so with a contextual Touchscreen template so it changes and updates to reflex any track I have selected in my DAW.


----------



## Waywyn

stigc56 said:


> Okay.
> I'm sitting here installing Berlin Woodwinds Revive.
> I have been using articulations maps for many years and just lately I have been aware about the problems with track delays. So many comments about this problem suggest to combine a pr. track/art solution with a articulation switch based. But I fear that this will leave me with the worst of both solutions. Also, how can I combine this set-up with a Kontakt set-up in my VEPro frame?
> 
> Orchestral Tools "shines" with leaving all this "boring" set-up work to their customers, claiming that there are not one solution that fits al, I suppose, and they might be right. But I must say that a selling point for companies producing libraries, is ease of set-up. And in this regard OT is behind.
> 
> When I buy a library for around 650€ I just WANT ALL the articulations in my set-up. So how is this possible in Berlin WW?
> I can load all the piccolo articulations into Kontakt separate, this will give me 13 separate articulations, addressed by 13 midi channels, and with 12 instruments in the library it will take up 12 midi ports!
> The other way is to combine some of the articulation in a multi. This will give you fewer slots in Kontakt, but you will have to create the set-up your self.
> 
> I have 4 or 5 woodwinds libraries and if each of these articulations will take up a midi port, I will need around 50 ports!
> I also use VSL string libraries, Spitfire string libraries, LASS string libraries and so on. They have so many MORE articulations, it's simply not a viable solution to address each of their articulations with a separate track.
> So if anyone have a WORKING set-up, that combines these two ways it really would be nice to have details.


Out of curiosity, but which company so far made it easy for the customer to deal with the negative track delay? No matter what patches from no matter what sample library I am using, they all contain different track delays. Sometimes I have to put in different track delays for the same articulations, depending on the arrangement, the track tempo, and the flow.

It is like a great drummer, not only plays in time. They can drag or rush and deal with micro timing ... I find the same is necessary for the orchestra. Real orchestras perform with a conductor who makes them tight, rush, or drag. A sample library company cannot implement conductor features on all these track delays. This is what we have to take care of.

Besides that, the first sample library company that takes care of the track delay problem with either negative delay compensation or all articulations matching between each other in realtime will also win the Nobel's prize because they managed to make time travel possible.


----------



## Alex Fraser

Waywyn said:


> Out of curiosity, but which company so far made it easy for the customer to deal with the negative track delay? No matter what patches from no matter what sample library I am using, they all contain different track delays. Sometimes I have to put in different track delays for the same articulations, depending on the arrangement, the track tempo, and the flow.
> 
> It is like a great drummer, not only plays in time. They can drag or rush and deal with micro timing ... I find the same is necessary for the orchestra. Real orchestras perform with a conductor who makes them tight, rush, or drag. A sample library company cannot implement conductor features on all these track delays. This is what we have to take care of.
> 
> Besides that, the first sample library company that takes care of the track delay problem with either negative delay compensation or all articulations matching between each other in realtime will also win the Nobel's prize because they managed to make time travel possible.


TBH, I've never bothered doing a deep dive or setting up track delay on these things. It seems to be a constantly moving target and an attempt to bring order to what is an inherently chaotic thing.
If I want track pre-delay, I usually apply it to the midi regions directly in Logic.


----------



## jononotbono

Waywyn said:


> Out of curiosity, but which company so far made it easy for the customer to deal with the negative track delay? No matter what patches from no matter what sample library I am using, they all contain different track delays. Sometimes I have to put in different track delays for the same articulations, depending on the arrangement, the track tempo, and the flow.
> 
> It is like a great drummer, not only plays in time. They can drag or rush and deal with micro timing ... I find the same is necessary for the orchestra. Real orchestras perform with a conductor who makes them tight, rush, or drag. A sample library company cannot implement conductor features on all these track delays. This is what we have to take care of.
> 
> Besides that, the first sample library company that takes care of the track delay problem with either negative delay compensation or all articulations matching between each other in realtime will also win the Nobel's prize because they managed to make time travel possible.


I can do it. I just invert my sample libraries.

Don’t try to understand it. Just feel it.


----------



## Kony

stigc56 said:


> When I buy a library for around 650€ I just WANT ALL the articulations in my set-up. So how is this possible in Berlin WW?


Use one multi with expression maps - then split that out into separate tracks (once you have finished composing) into the articulations that you actually used in the composition.


----------



## Markrs

Markrs said:


> Not sure if it is madness or not but I am currently creating a track for every articulation in BBCSO for Reaper. I will then create Track templates for both instruments and sections which can then be used in the master template. It is rather boring doing it, but now I have started it I feel the need to complete it. Later on I might add in all the track delays as well.
> 
> I don't think I will be doing the same for EW Hollywood Orchestra as I sure the strings alone would drive me to madness!





MauroPantin said:


> Curious that you mention that one in particular because that's the library I was mainly thinking about, lol!


Even though I thought it would drive me to madness and that there are at least 3000+ tracks (probably lots more than that, but I don't fancy counting them all) I decided to build a full complete EWHO Diamond set of track templates for Reaper including Divisi. 






EastWest Hollywood Orchestra Diamond Templates for Reaper


Okay... I decided to do something that seemed reasonable at the time and then turned into a marathon. I wanted to make more use of my EastWest Hollywood Orchestra Diamond Library and didn't want to keep waiting for Opus's release. So I decided to create Reaper track Templates for EWHOD. These...




vi-control.net


----------



## stigc56

Waywyn said:


> Out of curiosity, but which company so far made it easy for the customer to deal with the negative track delay? No matter what patches from no matter what sample library I am using, they all contain different track delays. Sometimes I have to put in different track delays for the same articulations, depending on the arrangement, the track tempo, and the flow.
> 
> It is like a great drummer, not only plays in time. They can drag or rush and deal with micro timing ... I find the same is necessary for the orchestra. Real orchestras perform with a conductor who makes them tight, rush, or drag. A sample library company cannot implement conductor features on all these track delays. This is what we have to take care of.
> 
> Besides that, the first sample library company that takes care of the track delay problem with either negative delay compensation or all articulations matching between each other in realtime will also win the Nobel's prize because they managed to make time travel possible.


Well I don't think any company has made that part of building a template easier, but I think that VSL and Spitfire has done a good job with building templates for their instruments, while dealing with OT libraries force you to deal with all that your self. I would imagine that many customers would be very happy for Kontakt Multies that hold ALL articulation of a single instrument and corresponding articulation maps would be very welcome too.
And regarding the conductor analogy I don't agree at all. In my life as a Musical Director I have never given, nor received instructions regarding the timing of the music, understood in the way musicians should place theres lines according to the beat. As an arranger I have made instructions to the orchestra to "lighten" (con vivo) the tempo feel but of course they will always follow the baton - or try too.
What I need from the samples libraries companies is an awareness of the problems, and that side could be improved, as my recent mail correspondence with one of the big names shows, where the supporter didn't quite understand my point. The dream scenario could be a defined sample delay of maybe 100ms, so the whole track of a 1st violin group could play with precision regardless of which articulations was in play. This could maybe be refined into a setting where you could switch this "uniformed" delay on/off. 
I think one of the best moments in Anne-Kathrin Derns YT about Brass libraries (14:40), was the spot where she talks about the imperfections of the libraries. I totally agree with her in her views regarding this, we need libraries with precision both in timing and tuning, any imperfection you want can easily be added by your programming.


----------



## samphony

Hopefully in the not so distant future all this underpinning AI tech could help achieving a more user friendly workflow until then whatever works. Especially if you prefer your midi notes to be perfectly on the grid there is no way around single track articulations or a middleware that deals with delay timings per articulation.

maybe one day these articulation maps or expression maps allow different delay timings.


----------



## babylonwaves

samphony said:


> maybe one day these articulation maps or expression maps allow different delay timings.


the perceived timing changes with the microphone mix ...

When I need my shorts on the grid, I make a second instrument and give it a negativ delay. That's good enough for me. Because the RRs will have different timing as well. E.g. SF has a tightness control, I'd need to dial that down to zero as well. And sooner than later everything sound unrealistic. If I need my ostinatos dead on the grid, I put a synth under the shorts (to shape the attacks). Works well for me.


----------



## jononotbono

babylonwaves said:


> When I need my shorts on the grid, I make a second instrument and give it a negativ delay. That's good enough for me. Because the RRs will have different timing as well. E.g. SF has a tightness control, I'd need to dial that down to zero as well. And sooner than later everything sound unrealistic. If I need my ostinatos dead on the grid, I put a synth under the shorts (to shape the attacks). Works well for me.


Would love to hear some examples of this with and without a synth added if you could upload something here? 

Just wanna hear how well that works for you!


----------



## Alex Fraser

stigc56 said:


> What I need from the samples libraries companies is an awareness of the problems, and that side could be improved, as my recent mail correspondence with one of the big names shows, where the supporter didn't quite understand my point. The dream scenario could be a defined sample delay of maybe 100ms, so the whole track of a 1st violin group could play with precision regardless of which articulations was in play. This could maybe be refined into a setting where you could switch this "uniformed" delay on/off.


I'm not sure how many developers actually see this as a problem?

Sure, I totally understand the logic behind pre-defined track delays from a workflow perspective, especially if your final destination is a score > live orchestra. There's obvious advantages to working to the grid.

I guess it's a question of how far do you go with it though? My suspicion is that by the time you've got all the values to hand, made all the adjustments for different articulations, mic mixes etc and somehow wrangled it into a workable template - the time expended would dwarf the time otherwise spent on just nudging things around on an ad-hoc basis? There's only so far you can go organising this stuff before you're a full time template builder instead of writing music.

Perhaps the best approach would be to get the negative delay values for library articulation/mic/library combos that you'll use frequently. A few "short ostinato" patches for example, some key "longs" and leave the rest to the sample gods.


----------



## mussnig

samphony said:


> Hopefully in the not so distant future all this underpinning AI tech could help achieving a more user friendly workflow until then whatever works. Especially if you prefer your midi notes to be perfectly on the grid there is no way around single track articulations or a middleware that deals with delay timings per articulation.
> 
> maybe one day these articulation maps or expression maps allow different delay timings.


It more or less works in Ableton Live, using this amazing M4L device to handle your articulations:





KeySwitch & Expression Map for Ableton Live | swub







www.swub.de





If you use this with an instrument rack (which is only one of many ways you can use it), you can then add (positive) Midi delays in each chain of the rack, so that in the end all articulations for this track have the same total delay (which is the highest built-in delay occuring for any of these articulations). You then set your track pre-delay to compensate for it.


----------



## jononotbono

I’m going to feature request that Steinberg add an option in the Expression Maps window to have a negative track delay for each art. On/Off and a neg value for when On is selected. That’s where it should be. Top right section.


----------



## stigc56

jononotbono said:


> I’m going to feature request that Steinberg add an option in the Expression Maps window to have a negative track delay for each art. On/Off and a neg value for when On is selected. That’s where it should be. Top right section.


That's a good idea. The whole Expression Map set-up REALLY needs an overhaul, has been for years.


----------



## InLight-Tone

Alex Fraser said:


> There's only so far you can go organising this stuff before you're a *full time template builder* instead of writing music.


^^^^^THIS^^^^^^


----------



## David Kudell

I just rebuilt my template and I used Anne's as a bit of a guide, along with what I saw in Lorne Balfe's Cubase projects he made available for download. I'm in the single articulation per track camp now based on what Anne mentions in her video. 

When it comes to a template - a legato patch, a stacc, and a Marcato/stacc combo work 95% of the time. How often do you really use portato, swells, doubles, etc? Those can always be loaded when needed.

My first template I had tons of tracks, instruments, and articulations, thinking I needed to be prepared for every eventuality. The result was huge file size, slow saving on every project file. Since paring the track count down, save times are down to 2 seconds and that's without using VEPro.


----------



## stigc56

Yes I also looked at A.K. Dern. Funny enough I didn't listened to anything from her DAW, but the demo of libraries, so it's a little uncertain how it actually sounds, right?
Where did you find information about Lorne Balfe?
Do you have any links?


----------



## Markrs

I thought a lot of composers used one track per articulation but realised JunkieXL uses Cubase expression maps. 

I am playing around with both methods at the moment. I don't like the idea of really large articulation maps as they will be loading lots of articulations you don't need I to memory. On the flip side, on a more melodic line, flipping between tracks for a few notes doesn't sound like much fun.


----------



## samphony

The new goal of everyone should be how more efficient to your projects needs can you build your template and share your findings. How many of you really need 2000 tracks in a project?

The most efficient would be a lean basic template and then maybe one that. Has all strings, all brass etc so you can import tracks as needed?


----------



## stigc56

The one track pr. articulation approach is not that smooth if you compose in Sibelius or Dorico.


----------



## Theladur

stigc56 said:


> The one track pr. articulation approach is not that smooth if you compose in Sibelius or Dorico.


However, this approach is actually really smooth if you are working in Studio One.

You only have to use the instrument preset organisation of Studio One, and create a preset for each instrument set up with each single articulation.

I use an "empty" template (just bus groups and folders), and the real "template" is the folder structure of my presets. So when I need anything, I just navigate through the presets, and drag and drop the presets for the articulations I need from an instrument into the corresponding folder track, and Studio One automatically loads them creating a track for each articulation, while assigning the output to the bus of the folder.

So, no need for having hundreds or thousands of tracks "pre loaded", just load each track when needed. Everything is alway there on the side, organised as instrument presets.

I found this way of setting up a template somewhere here on VI-Control, and if I remember correctly, Alex ( @Waywyn ) also showed this way of working in one of his (excellent) videos.

After the introduction of the keyswitch lane functionality with Studio One 5, I only shortly tried working with these, but found it a bit cumbersome compared to the one track per articulation method.


----------



## wst3

pawelmorytko said:


> Not to mention that different artics can call for different processing which also doesn't make sense to me as to why you'd have them all on one track using key switches/expression maps. Maybe the shorts need less reverb? Maybe one articulation has some mids you want to remove with eq? So you have to sacrifice all of the other articulations just to edit that one issue?


I'm staying out of this debate, but I've seen statements like this in several posts and I am curious, do people really do this? It seems awfully extreme. I understand different processing for different libraries, Cinematic Studio Strings requires different processing than CineStrings, for example.

Even within a library I can understand processing violins and violas differently.

But articulations? To what end?

My background is recording live players, although I've been enjoying the whole computer based studio thing since probably the early 90s. I have never seen anyone process individual articulations in a live recording.

I have enabled or disabled sends for a section of a composition which may, or may not correspond with different articulations, but that's the limit.

Can someone explain the reason for this level of tweaking? It can't be realism, can it?


----------



## MauroPantin

stigc56 said:


> The one track pr. articulation approach is not that smooth if you compose in Sibelius or Dorico.


It can be. The workaround for this in Dorico is to condense the separate art tracks into a single instrument. Most often you will have no overlaps, or it will show "a2" wherever you layered articulations. It takes a bit to set up but if you have a template and a saved flow with all the condensing and formatting options set up it works like a charm.

EDIT: I am referring to engraving, going DAW -> Dorico. Re-reading I think you might be talking about the inverse. Which yeah, it takes a bit to cut and paste every part on the correct track. But it's easier than playing everything in.


----------



## pawelmorytko

wst3 said:


> I'm staying out of this debate, but I've seen statements like this in several posts and I am curious, do people really do this? It seems awfully extreme. I understand different processing for different libraries, Cinematic Studio Strings requires different processing than CineStrings, for example.
> 
> Even within a library I can understand processing violins and violas differently.
> 
> But articulations? To what end?
> 
> My background is recording live players, although I've been enjoying the whole computer based studio thing since probably the early 90s. I have never seen anyone process individual articulations in a live recording.
> 
> I have enabled or disabled sends for a section of a composition which may, or may not correspond with different articulations, but that's the limit.
> 
> Can someone explain the reason for this level of tweaking? It can't be realism, can it?


Maybe if I was using everything from one library, or at least all in the same hall, for example the BBCSO or the SSO, then i wouldn't have to tweak as much.

But my string legato patch contains of CSS + CSSS, my string longs like sustains, are CSS, CS2, Albion One. My spiccatos are a blend CSS, CS2, Fluid Shorts, and SCS. My pizzicatos are SCS and Albion One. I'm never really too worried about how many libraries/halls i'm blending together, just as long as the end result sounds good. So as you can see, different articulations have lots of different combinations of libraries for me, which really does call for different processing. CSS + CSSS legatos for example need a high boost with eq for more "air" which i might not use for libraries like SCS and Albion One strings which have lots of "air" already. I might use different reverb amounts because my short articulations are sounding more ambient because of the blend of libraries I use.

So there is a lot to it I think, not always about realism but what sounds good, which is always just a subjective preference really.


----------



## Alex Fraser

wst3 said:


> I'm staying out of this debate, but I've seen statements like this in several posts and I am curious, do people really do this? It seems awfully extreme. I understand different processing for different libraries, Cinematic Studio Strings requires different processing than CineStrings, for example.
> 
> Even within a library I can understand processing violins and violas differently.
> 
> But articulations? To what end?
> 
> My background is recording live players, although I've been enjoying the whole computer based studio thing since probably the early 90s. I have never seen anyone process individual articulations in a live recording.
> 
> I have enabled or disabled sends for a section of a composition which may, or may not correspond with different articulations, but that's the limit.
> 
> Can someone explain the reason for this level of tweaking? It can't be realism, can it?


I'm not sure I can see the application either in the context of "normal" orchestral work, but such comments may refer to using libraries for productions like trailer music etc or when you're layering up multiple libraries.

In those cases you might want to ultra-treat your shorts or layer longs for a "larger than life" sound. In which case, separate tracks would be more efficient.

It could also be that VIC members can't stop tweaking. 😉


----------



## David Kudell

stigc56 said:


> Yes I also looked at A.K. Dern. Funny enough I didn't listened to anything from her DAW, but the demo of libraries, so it's a little uncertain how it actually sounds, right?
> Where did you find information about Lorne Balfe?
> Do you have any links?


He has posted many of his Cubase projects to his Facebook page, you just need to scroll down (or search). In return he asks for a donation to certain charities. 

Projects he has posted include: Assassins Creed, Call or Duty, His Dark Materials, Mission Impossible Fallout, Pacific Rim, Penguins, Bad Boys, Lego Batman, The Crown, the Bible, Genius, and 6 Underground! 

If you have the Sptifire libraries you can actually play much of it. It's a great tool to see how he orchestrates.






Log into Facebook


Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.




www.facebook.com


----------



## InLight-Tone

I've gone to a more hybrid approach from watching Trevor Morris's videos about his template. He has separate articulation tracks for his ensemble patches for "jamming" out parts and improvising.

Then he also has keyswitch patches for adding in the details and and creating more musical phrases which can overlay and/or replace the ensemble patches.

The shorts and the longs are routed to separate reverbs which are the same room, but differing amounts i.e., less reverb on the shorts. He also has separate stems for Orchestra Shorts & Orchestra Longs. This results in better clarity in my opinion.

On the keyswitch tracks, you can load 2 of the same instrument, and route the longs & shorts to a separate stereo outs in Kontakt, which are bussed to shorts & longs groups. So one instrument and one Expression map. Easy to do in Spitfire & Orchestral Tools libraries.

So Strings High Long, Strings High Short, Strings Low Long, Strings Low Short. You send to reverbs for the groups so you have plenty of control and tweakability.


----------



## MarcusD

My thoughts on this, bare in mind this will vary depending on how you build your templates. I'm basing this on Instrument tracks only (for split) and Instrument + MIDI for KeySwitches:

Pros - Split templates give you total control over routing, mixing and RAM management per patch. Also much easier to recall pre-created setups in certain DAWs.

Cons - Uses more CPU, take longer to set up, higher track counts.

KeySwitch Templates (Expression Maps):

Pros - Quicker to set up, lower track count, more CPU friendly, ability to mass purge multiple patches hosted inside the sampler (if your sampler supports it). Can program some nice lines using the articulation switches.

Cons - Audio routing can vary in annoyance depending on the sampler and take A LOT of time to set up if you want to split mic positions. Also, you're limited to the outputs in the sampler and how many patches you can load, can get confusing quite easily when you're trying to pinpoint something.

Sometimes you only want to use one or two patches loaded inside a Sampler, so you can't really disabled the entire sampler or freeze the independent patches loaded inside of it when using MIDI tracks to control patches. Always found this a little grating.

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

Personally prefer split templates (using individual instrument tracks per patch), much more control over every area from writing, mixing to mastering. Workflow wise they're slightly quicker in some respects, granted you need to spend more time building them. I've jumped between a number of different methods for a while and always end up coming back to split templates, purely because they let you do everything but mainly... the workflow is better overall IMO.

Keyswitch templates using 1 patch per instrument track are really good for sketching something out quickly. But It's also good to have some KS patches in your split template anyway, for when you need to create interesting lines for an instrument.


----------



## Markrs




----------



## robgb

Hybrid approach for me. I use an articulation manager on one track with multiple articulations for an instrument. But I've also saved individual articulations to track templates. So I do the basic line using the articulation manager, but if I need something extra, I can load up a separate track with a specific articulation in an instant. That keeps the template clean and simple.


----------



## g.c.

stigc56 said:


> Okay.
> I'm sitting here installing Berlin Woodwinds Revive.
> I have been using articulations maps for many years and just lately I have been aware about the problems with track delays. So many comments about this problem suggest to combine a pr. track/art solution with a articulation switch based. But I fear that this will leave me with the worst of both solutions. Also, how can I combine this set-up with a Kontakt set-up in my VEPro frame?
> 
> Orchestral Tools "shines" with leaving all this "boring" set-up work to their customers, claiming that there are not one solution that fits al, I suppose, and they might be right. But I must say that a selling point for companies producing libraries, is ease of set-up. And in this regard OT is behind.
> 
> When I buy a library for around 650€ I just WANT ALL the articulations in my set-up. So how is this possible in Berlin WW?
> I can load all the piccolo articulations into Kontakt separate, this will give me 13 separate articulations, addressed by 13 midi channels, and with 12 instruments in the library it will take up 12 midi ports!
> The other way is to combine some of the articulation in a multi. This will give you fewer slots in Kontakt, but you will have to create the set-up your self.
> 
> I have 4 or 5 woodwinds libraries and if each of these articulations will take up a midi port, I will need around 50 ports!
> I also use VSL string libraries, Spitfire string libraries, LASS string libraries and so on. They have so many MORE articulations, it's simply not a viable solution to address each of their articulations with a separate track.
> So if anyone have a WORKING set-up, that combines these two ways it really would be nice to have details.


----------



## puremusic

Honestly, I feel conflicted. I feel like I should be a multi-articulation in a single track guy, as that allows me to perform more of it all at once.. and I do prefer performing as much of a piece or part of a piece live all at once as possible.. but I actually don't like using key switches, and like the organization of articulation per track a lot. 

So I've wound up doing the articulation per track thing and only rarely doing it differently. And now I am redoing a gigantic orchestral template because the old one was Kontakt 5.. and now I have Kontakt 6. I don't have the patience to do it all in one go, so I just do it piece by piece, make some music, then do some more when my patience recharges. Add a Kontakt instance, find the single articulation, apply the KSP script, click the wrench and fix some things, get the volume right.. rinse and repeat. I'm tired just thinking about it.


----------



## mussnig

puremusic said:


> Add a Kontakt instance, find the single articulation, apply the KSP script, click the wrench and fix some things, get the volume right.. rinse and repeat.



Which KSP script, if you don't mind my asking?


----------



## puremusic

Oh it's just one to correct a bug with one of my MIDI controllers, that sends zero modwheel values occassionally, I have it set to remove those. Nothing interesting. There are no doubt some interesting KSP scripts out there I should probably consider adding in the future.


----------



## Nick Weathers

jononotbono said:


> I’m going to feature request that Steinberg add an option in the Expression Maps window to have a negative track delay for each art. On/Off and a neg value for when On is selected. That’s where it should be. Top right section.


I made this feature request as well! It would work. Until then, I’m just lassoing notes and shifting them on the grid until it sounds right.


----------



## Nick Weathers

Is there a way to have our cake and eat it too? As in sketch ideas with longs, draw in articulations with map, and finally split the midi event into separate midi tracks per articulation? Seems like the Cubase logical editor could do this. Any power users care to chime in? Then, one could mix each articulation separately at the mixing stage. Until per articulation pre delay is a reality, and should be, this would satisfy both needs. I’ll see if a midi event can be split by articulation and report back. I’ll also note that writing articulation per track out of the gate messes with the flow and timing, as I am playing in specific notes and trying to re feel the previous passage. Not good unless you quantize everything(yuck).


----------



## Nick Weathers

Lastly, use the Cubase logical editor to move all notes of a specific articulation by an exact amount. That works too. Create a preset for each articulation and library, assign it to a key command and bam you have each articulation with its own predelay. Granted, it will be off the grid, but on the grid is for robots!


----------



## Nick Weathers

I’ve skinned this cat so many times, I think it’s time to put him out of his misery!


----------



## stigc56

The implementation of VST expressions in Cubase doesn't allow to select specific notes *by* their vst articulations. I think this feature is present in Studio One though! So you have to do the selection of ex. all legatos manually!


----------



## jononotbono

I’m creating an Articulation System in my touch screen controller. I still use separate arts on separate tracks for some things but if the timings for arts are equal, having a contextual window showing all arts is very nice. It’s also soooo many less tracks in a template. Definitely a Hybrid approach for me now.


----------

