# Orb Composer Pro S 1.5 (A.I Composing Software) - Review



## will_m

I’ve been testing out some AI composer software from Hexachords. This is new territory for me on this one but hopefully someone will find it interesting. Here’s my video review of Orb Composer Pro.


----------



## KarlHeinz

This is really a useful and honest review, evrybody interested in this stuff should view.

The gap between the "how great this is" from the official videos especially done for the 1.5, which are helpful in the way to show what might be "best of all imagineable cases", and this shows the bandwide possible at the moment I think. There is really a loooong way from the Hobbits to the Jurassic park  .

I am really believing in this software while I see the problems (at least for the way I want to use it) very realistic and this video helped me in two ways:

- showing me that I am not deaf, dumb, crippled and blind if my imported melody does NOT sound like jurassic park in the "showroom" video
- that I really have to try out MORE before I start to make something serious, I mostly had a kind of clear idea what I wanted to do, drag in one blog and tried to work on it without just hitting the "create evrything from the scratch" button again and again which might be (one) good starting point to use this

So really thanks for this video, helped me much in having a more focussed view on the possibilities and how to use

EDIT: another deep approval: you have to really kind of choose the sounds you want from your VST/Kontakt library before trying out anything, the default piano sound on nearly any channel gives you no impression at all if this general idea could fit to your needs


----------



## Kenjoe

Hi. anyone having problem with solo violin and solo cello could report if its working for them. For me, it is not playing any sound in orb piano or vst


----------



## chocobitz825

I feel like this software is misrepresented. You can get great results, but it depends on the approach. I don't think I'd ever write a song in Orb, or expect it to just generate a usable song. What I have found best is to set out your chord progressions first and then enter those sections and progressions into Orb. From there, you let it generate arrangements. As stated by @KarlHeinz, it's really important to choose your sounds. I think it's better to do this by syncing it with your daw and keeping a template project file for Orb. It makes it much easier to identify what you're creating. The change from piano samples to a piano/strings pad sample in Orb 1.5 also makes it much harder to understand whats going on with multiple tracks if you don't use your sounds. 

I've also found that while it gives the option to create a Question/Answer progression block type, I find them mostly to be repetitive and lacking in melodic value. I find it much better to set your chord progressions and use the Standard setting instead. It, of course, depends on the song, but I find much better melodies that way.

Also, when importing a complicated midi file, the "User Melody" function might become messy. Sometimes it might be better to let orb create around the chord progressions you've made, and then in your DAW, use the melody your melody as an extra layer added to the project after you've done your arrangement in orb.


----------



## chocobitz825

Kenjoe said:


> Hi. anyone having problem with solo violin and solo cello could report if its working for them. For me, it is not playing any sound in orb piano or vst




I'll send a bug report for it. For some inexplicable reason, it defaults the Solo Cello and Violin to Percussion and -100% density. No matter what you change, it never actually generates anything for it.


----------



## Kenjoe

chocobitz825 said:


> I'll send a bug report for it. For some inexplicable reason, it defaults the Solo Cello and Violin to Percussion and -100% density. No matter what you change, it never actually generates anything for it.



Thank you @chocobitz825 
Hope it gets fixed soon.


----------



## dekrue2019

I am very disappointed in Orb ! I was elated when it first came out, had very strong A.I. to it and loved to have a great future with it. That is until the updates. It seems that every time it got updated it became worse. Now the melodies that it creates are very lacking as to when the program first came out. On top of that it's not very intuitive and keeps crashing my new Dell Alienware computer. I have a midi generated from over ten years ago that makes much better sketches / renderings.


----------



## will_m

KarlHeinz said:


> This is really a useful and honest review, evrybody interested in this stuff should view.
> 
> The gap between the "how great this is" from the official videos especially done for the 1.5, which are helpful in the way to show what might be "best of all imagineable cases", and this shows the bandwide possible at the moment I think. There is really a loooong way from the Hobbits to the Jurassic park  .
> 
> I am really believing in this software while I see the problems (at least for the way I want to use it) very realistic and this video helped me in two ways:
> 
> - showing me that I am not deaf, dumb, crippled and blind if my imported melody does NOT sound like jurassic park in the "showroom" video
> - that I really have to try out MORE before I start to make something serious, I mostly had a kind of clear idea what I wanted to do, drag in one blog and tried to work on it without just hitting the "create evrything from the scratch" button again and again which might be (one) good starting point to use this
> 
> So really thanks for this video, helped me much in having a more focussed view on the possibilities and how to use
> 
> EDIT: another deep approval: you have to really kind of choose the sounds you want from your VST/Kontakt library before trying out anything, the default piano sound on nearly any channel gives you no impression at all if this general idea could fit to your needs



Thanks Karl, glad you found it useful. Its definitely an interesting tool that has a certain learning curve to it and like most sample libraries the official demos are often a 'best case scenario' that the first time user may struggle to achieve without hours of use.


----------



## InLight-Tone

I think spending some serious time to ramp up your keyboard chops so you can improvise what's in your mind is a better use of time than fiddling with these crutch systems. They will NEVER deliver the music you want. You already know what it is you're looking for, and being able to freely play it on the keyboard is a more direct route than sifting through a ton of OK material, (speaking from lots of experience)...


----------



## dzilizzi

InLight-Tone said:


> I think spending some serious time to ramp up your keyboard chops so you can improvise what's in your mind is a better use of time than fiddling with these crutch systems. They will NEVER deliver the music you want. You already know what it is you're looking for, and being able to freely play it on the keyboard is a more direct route than sifting through a ton of OK material, (speaking from lots of experience)...


I initially bought it as a learning tool. It was supposed to follow classical music theory. I can play (a bit - between my arthritis and lack of coordination, sometimes playing a keyboard is difficult) but the problem I was having was on how to separate the parts. And just how the instruments play. Since I bought it, people like Spitfire have come out with "learning how to orchestrate for midi" videos that have been really helpful. I still like Orb because I can get midi lines out of it. I probably will start with it, just as I do with the midi I get from Toontrack's EZKeys, and then adjust it to fit my melody. But you can't expect it to write your whole piece for you. AI isn't at that point yet and this was never really meant to be more than a starting place that requires a lot of adjustments. But that is what makes you the composer.


----------



## ChristianM

Hexachord team are not musicians or composers… Forget this software !


----------



## dzilizzi

ChristianM said:


> Hexachord team are not musicians or composers… Forget this software !


Yes and no. He actually studied music theory to make this. Or really as he was studying theory, the idea came to him to create it. I'm sure it is a hobby for him, and I already own it, so too late.


----------



## Rowy

As long as we do not know _how_ exactly our brain works, we will not be able to analyze the creative process. Therefore, A.I. doesn't exist. What is meant by A.I. is the sophisticated handling of a database.

I didn't try out Orb Composer Pro, but I noticed that the chords are not being named after their grades and functions. Instead, they're being named according to the popular chord notation. So in A Major I, II, and III are being called A, Bm, and C#m. Apparently this tool is aimed at musicians who specialize in popular music.

Listening to an example, I noticed that there's is no voice-leading whatsoever. That gave me the frightening thought the OCP has been developed by a musician with a lack of classical training.

It is impossible to handle a chord progression in a sophisticated manner if you never studied classical harmony, voice-leading, and even music history if you want to write in different styles.

Furthermore, I know this forum is all about VSTs and DAWs, but if you're going to review software for _composers_, it would help if you're not just good with sliders and knobs, but also had a decent theoretical training. Especially if so-called A.I. is part of the marketing. By the way, I watched OCP's official video, not will_m's one.

Orb Composer Pro (sic) is a nice toy and the makers are excellent software developers. That's it. It certainly isn't useful for composers, but if you would like to have a try at composing music, this tool could be fun.

Years ago I found a plugin that builds chord progressions in a classical manner with excellent voice leading. It was written by someone who knew his theory. That plugin was way more useful than OCP. It didn't write melodies, but an interesting and well sounding chord progression is what most learning composers need. A melody is not that difficult to write.

I forgot the name of that plugin, but perhaps someone else will remember.


----------



## KarlHeinz

Rowy, your post shows the (very difficult) balancing act Hexachord tries to fulfill in my mind. Their main target is to be a classic composer orchester tool. I have not the knowledge to judge the quality of this.

But of course this takes lots of ressources (the theory behind it alone). For me I just use it as an inspirational tool that helps me find inspiration and fills (some) gaps in missing knowledge as an only hobby "composer" who mainly wnats to have fun while driving threw this soundscape lands opened to (nearly) evryone with the development status of todays electronic music software.

The problem is that for anything other then the classic "theme" the devellopment is more then rudimentary (in the ambient template for example which I would like to use mostly I can see no real devellopment).

Maybe someday two different versions might be a solution (Artist and Pro are no solution cause there are to much general functions missing in Artist), one for the "real" classic orchestral composer (which of course would need more like what you are talking about) and one for someone like me who is glad to find some inspiration and help for making some simple things to devellop further in daw or whatever.

I think they really trying hard to bring this tool to a point where it is really useful (at least for some), but devellopment seems to follow the way two steps forward, one back. And that of course opens doors for new bugs while old ones still not fixed.

I wont use this for evry track, I have different workflows for different targets and moods, this is one of them but I am really happy to have it and I am kind of optimistic for further devellopment even if I see it not getting easier with tools like AIVA for example.


----------



## Rowy

KarlHeinz said:


> Rowy, your post shows the (very difficult) balancing act Hexachord tries to fulfill in my mind. Their main target is to be a classic composer orchester tool.



In that case, they started off on the wrong foot. If you use the popular chord notation and the popular idea of chord progression, then how on earth is this going to be a tool for the _classical_ composer?

Besides, if a (neo) classical composer wants to write music, he certainly isn't going to need this tool. All he needs is a pencil and paper. And an instrument, if necessary.

But I know what you mean. If you _want_ to be a classical composer and you're still learning, you'll need all the help you can get. A tool like this might give you the impression that the path to the top of Mount Parnassus has been paved. That, it has not!

You'll learn more if you take lessons. Real lessons, with a licensed teacher. That is something I blame the internet. Nowadays people tend to think that you can learn anything just by reading articles, watching videos and installing software. It doesn't work that way. Not with studies that are difficult.

You don't want a doctor to check your health if all he did was searching for information on the internet, do you? The same goes for a trained composer. Four years music school, six years at a conservatory of music (or university) and you are qualified enough to call yourself a _beginning_ composer.

I'm not being a snob here. I've taught amateur composers with great joy. It's Hexachord who is being the snob. AI? No, not true. Classical composers? Not true. Interesting chord progressions? No, not even close. A toy to play with? Yes, that it is.

And I admire software developers who are capable of writing something like OCP. All I managed was some assembler code and a bit of Android. I'm not calling myself a software developer though. I wouldn't dare.


----------



## ChristianM

If you only want create progression, you have for example Harmony Navigator :


http://www.cognitone.com/products/nav/intro/page.stml?a=1&b=2


You have 2 versions.

ps : In fact, I use Synfire Pro and, for me, I think Orb Composer is a gadget or toy without AI… (where is AI ?)


----------



## Rowy

ChristianM said:


> ps : In fact, I use Synfire Pro and, for me, I think Orb Composer is a gadget or toy without AI… (where is AI ?)



I use Staedtler and Leonard


----------



## ChristianM

^^


----------



## KarlHeinz

Christian, before Orb Composer I worked with Rapid Composer which I think is comparable to Synfire Pro but the problem is really steep learning curve and lot of time just to keep up with the devellopment.

What makes Orb Composer great for someone like me is the general user friendliness which I may just let drop under the table while thinking about their targets and that is definitely the one they seem to manage the best so far and gets forgotten easyly while talking about the problems.

I know I really loved the idea tool in Rapid Composer and the tirelessly devellopment from one Guy doing this and stil try to keep up track a little following in the forum but you have to dig so deep into it and that is really done well with Orb Composer. You can open the program and just start. Choose a template, choose a scale, choose a chord progression, choose a block, choose some instruments and there you go (wherever that might lead you  )


----------



## dzilizzi

it is much easier to use than Rapid Composer or Synfire. Liquid Music is another one, but you only get one track at a time. And I have them all.


----------



## ChristianM

KarlHeinz said:


> Christian, before Orb Composer I worked with Rapid Composer which I think is comparable to Synfire Pro but the problem is really steep learning curve and lot of time just to keep up with the devellopment.
> 
> What makes Orb Composer great for someone like me is the general user friendliness which I may just let drop under the table while thinking about their targets and that is definitely the one they seem to manage the best so far and gets forgotten easyly while talking about the problems.
> 
> I know I really loved the idea tool in Rapid Composer and the tirelessly devellopment from one Guy doing this and stil try to keep up track a little following in the forum but you have to dig so deep into it and that is really done well with Orb Composer. You can open the program and just start. Choose a template, choose a scale, choose a chord progression, choose a block, choose some instruments and there you go (wherever that might lead you  )


I was talking mostly about progressions where Harmony Navigator is a good solution, I think.

Synfire Pro is without doubt the best but most complex of all.
But, for me, it is very simple, because I am also a developer of "rather special" software (in predictive semantics) ...


----------



## SupremeFist

Rowy said:


> I use Staedtler and Leonard


Pfft, who can expect to write good music with a Staedtler? I use Rötrings.


----------



## Dollismine

Hello All,

In my opinion, the most important limit of Orb is the routing inside a Daw (Cubase 10 for me).

For example, if you use the Orb Orchestral template, Orb generates 135 tracks.
As the Orb plugin is absolutely ****, and if you want to have a correct sound result, you have to map the correct plugins in Cubase or in your favorite DAW.
So, you have to map 135 tracks (not really a problem, once it's done, it's done)

BUT !

If you use a sample player as Kontakt (probably 80% of Orchestral plugins are under Kontakt !!), aboslutely impossible to create a multi-rack to use each articulation into the same instance of Kontakt.
I mean, each articulation (Leagto, Long, Pizz, Stacc,...) needs one instance of Kontakt !

If you use only Kontakt for example, then you have to load 135 instance !! Wooooo.....

Just crazy for CPU !!


----------



## dzilizzi

Dollismine said:


> Hello All,
> 
> In my opinion, the most important limit of Orb is the routing inside a Daw (Cubase 10 for me).
> 
> For example, if you use the Orb Orchestral template, Orb generates 135 tracks.
> As the Orb plugin is absolutely ****, and if you want to have a correct sound result, you have to map the correct plugins in Cubase or in your favorite DAW.
> So, you have to map 135 tracks (not really a problem, once it's done, it's done)
> 
> BUT !
> 
> If you use a sample player as Kontakt (probably 80% of Orchestral plugins are under Kontakt !!), aboslutely impossible to create a multi-rack to use each articulation into the same instance of Kontakt.
> I mean, each articulation (Leagto, Long, Pizz, Stacc,...) needs one instance of Kontakt !
> 
> If you use only Kontakt for example, then you have to load 135 instance !! Wooooo.....
> 
> Just crazy for CPU !!


I ended up using VSL SE to keep the RAM down, then deactivated the tracks I wasn't using. But yes, it would be better if you could use keyswitches instead or multi - outs.


----------



## chocobitz825

Dollismine said:


> Hello All,
> 
> In my opinion, the most important limit of Orb is the routing inside a Daw (Cubase 10 for me).
> 
> For example, if you use the Orb Orchestral template, Orb generates 135 tracks.
> As the Orb plugin is absolutely ****, and if you want to have a correct sound result, you have to map the correct plugins in Cubase or in your favorite DAW.
> So, you have to map 135 tracks (not really a problem, once it's done, it's done)
> 
> BUT !
> 
> If you use a sample player as Kontakt (probably 80% of Orchestral plugins are under Kontakt !!), aboslutely impossible to create a multi-rack to use each articulation into the same instance of Kontakt.
> I mean, each articulation (Leagto, Long, Pizz, Stacc,...) needs one instance of Kontakt !
> 
> If you use only Kontakt for example, then you have to load 135 instance !! Wooooo.....
> 
> Just crazy for CPU !!



I think I'm misunderstanding your issue. Why would you have so many tracks and instances?
I use studio one, but for me, routing is just a matter of organizing your Kontakt instances whatever way works for you. For example, I break them up by instrument. So my multi-rack is Violin 1, legato, spiccato, pizzicato, etc. etc. all within one instance of Kontakt. Just the way I prefer to do it, but a simple method. Is this not possible in Cubase? I know it's not possible within Orb itself, which is a major problem, but it should be fine if you're routing Orb into your DAW and mapping midi correctly.

I think in the end for an orchestral template i ended up with about 40 instances of kontakt to fully cover the range...


----------



## dzilizzi

chocobitz825 said:


> I think I'm misunderstanding your issue. Why would you have so many tracks and instances?
> I use studio one, but for me, routing is just a matter of organizing your Kontakt instances whatever way works for you. For example, I break them up by instrument. So my multi-rack is Violin 1, legato, spiccato, pizzicato, etc. etc. all within one instance of Kontakt. Just the way I prefer to do it, but a simple method. Is this not possible in Cubase? I know it's not possible within Orb itself, which is a major problem, but it should be fine if you're routing Orb into your DAW and mapping midi correctly.
> 
> I think in the end for an orchestral template i ended up with about 40 instances of kontakt to fully cover the range...


The template that is provided to use with Orb Composer is one articulation per track. And, if you want to set up your own, it can be done. But using the template is just easy. You rarely use all, so it is easy to disable the ones not being used.


----------



## chocobitz825

ah right. So for studio one, I think it sets up a similar template. All I'm doing is opening one Kontakt instance per instrument and then separating the articulations in that Kontakt instance by midi channel. Then routing those midi channels to the various tracks in the template. Is that not possible in Cubase.

So for example:
Violin Kontakt 
Legato Track Violin Kontakt Midi Channel 1
Long Track Violin Kontakt Midi Channel 2

is this different than how you have it set up?


----------



## dzilizzi

You can do it that way I think. To use the multi out in Cubase, you have to use the rack instrument version of Kontakt not the normal instrument track. I haven't quite figured it out yet. I came from PT in which setting up is simple. Put Kontakt in an Aux Input track and send multiple midi tracks to it.


----------



## chocobitz825

dzilizzi said:


> You can do it that way I think. To use the multi out in Cubase, you have to use the rack instrument version of Kontakt not the normal instrument track. I haven't quite figured it out yet. I came from PT in which setting up is simple. Put Kontakt in an Aux Input track and send multiple midi tracks to it.



I just tried it out on my computer with Cubase 10. I believe you should be able to create a new instrument track with Kontakt, and then for the various articulations, you can create a midi track and have it route its midi in from the track with the Kontakt version you want it linked too.

is the functionality you're looking for?


----------



## Dollismine

Thanks for your answer 
This makes me understand that I (probably) don’t use Kontakt properly.

As said by [U]dzilizzi[/U], the Orb Template is one articulation by track. You have to load as many Kontakt instance as track. Forget this option !

I tried to make my own Template to decrease the number of loaded instance.
What I can do is have all the articulations of an instrument on the same track with a multi-rack
For example :
Track 1 = Piccolo
Instance loaded with a multi (channel 1 legato, channel 2 long, channel 3 staccato,...)

The first issue is that if Orb use Piccolo legato in a block and Piccolo stacatto in an other block, then, the midi data are recorded in the same track !
The second issue is that for some instruments, the articulation are not on the same Orb output, then I have to create 2 track for the same instrument (for example, trombones on Orb 10 - ch 12/13/14/15 + Orb 11 - ch 1/2)

But probably I don't use correctly the notion of mutli-rack (I'm a beginner user of Cubase, sorry)

What I want is to have each articulation recorded on an individual track.

I will try the method of Chocobitz. Makes sens !


----------



## chocobitz825

Dollismine said:


> Thanks for your answer
> This makes me understand that I (probably) don’t use Kontakt properly.
> 
> As said by [U]dzilizzi[/U], the Orb Template is one articulation by track. You have to load as many Kontakt instance as track. Forget this option !
> 
> I tried to make my own Template to decrease the number of loaded instance.
> What I can do is have all the articulations of an instrument on the same track with a multi-rack
> For example :
> Track 1 = Piccolo
> Instance loaded with a multi (channel 1 legato, channel 2 long, channel 3 staccato,...)
> 
> The first issue is that if Orb use Piccolo legato in a block and Piccolo stacatto in an other block, then, the midi data are recorded in the same track !
> The second issue is that for some instruments, the articulation are not on the same Orb output, then I have to create 2 track for the same instrument (for example, trombones on Orb 10 - ch 12/13/14/15 + Orb 11 - ch 1/2)
> 
> But probably I don't use correctly the notion of mutli-rack (I'm a beginner user of Cubase, sorry)
> 
> What I want is to have each articulation recorded on an individual track.
> 
> I will try the method of Chocobitz. Makes sens !



This is similar to the way I do it in studio one. So I believe what you would do is create your Instrument track, then create your midi tracks for each articulation, and for each midi track, change the midi input to the orb channel, and the midi out to the Kontakt instrument track with the midi channel matching the articulation set in kontakt..


----------



## will_m

Rowy said:


> You don't want a doctor to check your health if all he did was searching for information on the internet, do you? The same goes for a trained composer. Four years music school, six years at a conservatory of music (or university) and you are qualified enough to call yourself a _beginning_ composer.



This seems like a very rigid way of thinking, there are many paths to becoming a composer and I think to create great music you need to be able to express emotion not just have the training. Its the difference between art and craft, some of the best musicians and composers don't know any theory at all.


----------



## dzilizzi

chocobitz825 said:


> I just tried it out on my computer with Cubase 10. I believe you should be able to create a new instrument track with Kontakt, and then for the various articulations, you can create a midi track and have it route its midi in from the track with the Kontakt version you want it linked too.
> 
> is the functionality you're looking for?


Truthfully, I find Cubase a pain for routing. But I'm trained in ProTools and everything in Cubase is a pain to me, except the Chord Track. Well, and the midi inserts. ProTools doesn't have any. Which is why I keep looking for a new all-around solution. Haven't found it yet. S1 is close.


----------



## dzilizzi

chocobitz825 said:


> This is similar to the way I do it in studio one. So I believe what you would do is create your Instrument track, then create your midi tracks for each articulation, and for each midi track, change the midi input to the orb channel, and the midi out to the Kontakt instrument track with the midi channel matching the articulation set in kontakt..


Wait, do you have Cubase? Because it is weird. Compared to all the other normal DAWs that route similarly. It actually may not be as hard as I make it out to be, but because Steinberg invented VST and uses it for everything, trying to figure out what they mean by reading the manual can drive you crazy coming from a more normal DAW. (now I'm going to get it!)


----------



## Dollismine

chocobitz825 said:


> I just tried it out on my computer with Cubase 10. I believe you should be able to create a new instrument track with Kontakt, and then for the various articulations, you can create a midi track and have it route its midi in from the track with the Kontakt version you want it linked too.
> 
> is the functionality you're looking for?



Definitively, I don't understand the routing in cubase.
I try to apply your method, and the result is that all articulations are played, even if the channel seems to be correctly configured.

I hate Cubase !

Weel, i think I will stay with my method. Maybe nor perfect but it "works". Sufficient for my needs.


----------



## dzilizzi

Dollismine said:


> Definitively, I don't understand the routing in cubase.
> I try to apply your method, and the result is that all articulations are played, even if the channel seems to be correctly configured.
> 
> I hate Cubase !
> 
> Weel, i think I will saty with my method. Maybe nor perfect but it "works". Sufficient for my needs.


They have regular instruments and rack instruments. You have to use the "rack" instruments to do the multi in/out. There should be a YouTube video on it. I know I can't explain it well enough. I just know Cubase has some great things it can do, but easy to use is not one of them.


----------



## chocobitz825

Dollismine said:


> Definitively, I don't understand the routing in Cubase.
> I try to apply your method, and the result is that all articulations are played, even if the channel seems to be correctly configured.
> 
> I hate Cubase!
> 
> Weel, i think I will stay with my method. Maybe nor perfect, but it "works". Sufficient for my needs.


I see your problem now. Sorry, the midi out method works for general routing, but for orb, it does seem to be more complicated. I cant tell how they are getting every track to receive the relevant orb midi channels, so that's why it doesn't seem like its working correctly when you set midi channels. I'll see if i can figure it out.


----------



## Dollismine

Mappable articulationTemplate OrchetralChannelPiccoloLegatoXOrb 6 - ch 1LongXOrb 6 - ch 2StaccatoXOrb 6 - ch 3Tenuto XOrb 6 - ch 4MarcatoXOrb 6 - ch 5LongharmonicsOrb 6 - ch 6FluteLegatoXOrb 6 - ch 7LongXOrb 6 - ch 8StaccatoXOrb 6 - ch 9Tenuto XOrb 6 - ch 10MarcatoXOrb 6 - ch 11LongharmonicsXOrb 6 - ch 12OboeLegatoXOrb 7 - ch 8LongXOrb 7 - ch 9StaccatoXOrb 7 - ch 10Tenuto XOrb 7 - ch 11MarcatoXOrb 7 - ch 12Cor AnglaisLegatoXOrb 7 - ch 13LongXOrb 7 - ch 14StaccatoXOrb 7 - ch 15Tenuto XOrb 7 - ch 16MarcatoXOrb 8 - ch 1ClarinetLegatoXOrb 8 - ch 2LongXOrb 8 - ch 3StaccatoXOrb 8 - ch 4Tenuto XOrb 8 - ch 5MarcatoXOrb 8 - ch 6Bass ClarinetLegatoXOrb 8 - ch 7LongXOrb 8 - ch 8StaccatoXOrb 8 - ch 9Tenuto XOrb 8 - ch 10MarcatoXOrb 8 - ch 11BassoonLegatoXOrb 9 -ch 1LongXOrb 9 -ch 2StaccatoXOrb 9 -ch 3Tenuto XOrb 9 -ch 4MarcatoXOrb 9 -ch 5LongharmonicsXOrb 9 -ch 6TrumpetsLegatoXOrb 10 - ch 1LongXOrb 10 - ch 2StaccatoXOrb 10 - ch 3Tenuto XOrb 10 - ch 4MarcatoXOrb 10 - ch 5HornsLegatoXOrb 10 - ch 6LongXOrb 10 - ch 7StaccatoXOrb 10 - ch 8Tenuto XOrb 10 - ch 9MarcatoXOrb 10 - ch 10StaccatissimoXOrb 10 - ch 11TrombonesLegatoXOrb 10 - ch 12LongXOrb 10 - ch 13StaccatoXOrb 10 - ch 14Tenuto XOrb 10 - ch 15MarcatoXOrb 10 - ch 16LongharmonicsOrb 11 - ch 1Bass TromboneLegatoXOrb 11 - ch 2LongXOrb 11 - ch 3StaccatoXOrb 11 - ch 4Tenuto XOrb 11 - ch 5MarcatoXOrb 11 - ch 6TubaLegatoXOrb 12 - ch 1LongXOrb 12 - ch 2StaccatoXOrb 12 - ch 3Tenuto XOrb 12 - ch 4MarcatoXOrb 12 - ch 5HarpUniversal


----------



## Dollismine

Violins ILegatoXOrb 13 - ch1LongXOrb 13 - ch2SpiccatoXOrb 13 - ch3TenutoXOrb 13 - ch4MarcattoXOrb 13 - ch5PizzicatoXOrb 13 - ch6TremoloXOrb 13 - ch7LongharmonicsXOrb 13 - ch8CollegnoXOrb 13 - ch9LongflautandoXOrb 13 - ch10LongrachmXOrb 13 - ch11MarcatoattackXOrb 13 - ch12PizzbartokXOrb 13 - ch13ShortharmonicsXOrb 13 - ch14Violins IILegatoXOrb 13 - ch 15LongXOrb 13 - ch 16SpiccatoXOrb 14 - ch1TenutoXOrb 14 - ch2MarcattoXOrb 14 - ch3PizzicatoXOrb 14 - ch4TremoloXOrb 14 - ch5LongharmonicsXOrb 14 - ch6CollegnoXOrb 14 - ch7LongflautandoXOrb 14 - ch8MarcatoattackXOrb 14 - ch9PizzbartokXOrb 14 - ch10ShortharmonicsXOrb 14 - ch11Viola LegatoXOrb 14 - ch 12LongXOrb 14 - ch 13SpiccatoXOrb 14 - ch 14TenutoXOrb 14 - ch 15MarcattoXOrb 14 - ch 16PizzicatoXOrb 15 - ch 1TremoloXOrb 15 - ch 2LongharmonicsXOrb 15 - ch 3CollegnoXOrb 15 - ch 4LongflautandoXOrb 15 - ch 5MarcatoattackXOrb 15 - ch 6PizzbartokXOrb 15 - ch 7ShortharmonicsXOrb 15 - ch 8CelliLegatoXOrb 15 - ch 9LongXOrb 15 - ch 10SpiccatoXOrb 15 - ch 11TenutoXOrb 15 - ch 12MarcattoXOrb 15 - ch 13PizzicatoXOrb 15 - ch 14TremoloXOrb 15 - ch 15LongharmonicsXOrb 15 - ch 16CollegnoXOrb 16 - ch 1LongflautandoXOrb 16 - ch 2MarcatoattackXOrb 16 - ch 3PizzbartokXOrb 16 - ch 4ShortharmonicsXOrb 16 - ch 5Double BassCollegnoXOrb 16 - ch 6LegatoXOrb 16 - ch 7LongXOrb 16 - ch 8LongflautandoXOrb 16 - ch 9LongharmonicsXOrb 16 - ch 10MarcatoXOrb 16 - ch 11MaractoattackXOrb 16 - ch 12PizzbartokXOrb 16 - ch 13PizzicatoXOrb 16 - ch 14ShortharmonicsXOrb 16 - ch 15SpiccatoXOrb 16 - ch 16TenutoXOrb 17 - ch 1TremoloXOrb 17 - ch 2Piano 1UniversalXPiano 2UniversalX


----------



## Dollismine

Here below my method to record midi data from Orb to Cubase, without have 1 Kontakt instance by articulation (the result is that you have 1 instance by Instrument....better than 1 by articulation !)








The "problem" (if if we consider it as a problem) is that you can have different articulation of an instrument recorded in the same track.
No really a problem for me because I use this method only for sketches, and after, I re-work all tracks individually. i just use Orb as a general idea, inspiration,....

Alos, due to the Orb routing, sometime you can have 2 different orb Output (for example, Cor Anglais is routed on Orb 7 and Orb 8....in this case, no choice, you have to create 2 different track for the same instrument)








Probably my method is not perfect, not optimized, but this is the only I found easy and clear.
(racks is just inconcevable for me, too many tracks are generated, not clear at all !!)


----------



## erickfp

Hi,
Here's a review of ORB COMPOSER 1.5 / 1.5.1 after 4 months.
My conclusion: wait for a few years, if they survive.

*3 VERSIONS*
- Demo is fully functional but shuts down after 2 hours
- Artist S 1.5.1: only 4/4; only pop, rock, piano, electro, ambient; only major & minor (149€)
- Pro S 1.5.1: all time signatures, also orchestra & strings, all modes (399€)

I bought version 1.5 in Nov 2019 with the Black Friday deal. I have been using it on both a Mac and a PC for 4 months.


*GOOD*
- Certainly very comprehensive for people who can read and write music
- The midi editor is quite good
- You can upload your own melody for orchestration (midi files only)
- Very flexible, sometimes too much (articulations, midi editing, melody / motif / bass / chords / arpeggio, voices, polyphony, etc.)
- The menus on the left make it very easy to add instruments, blocks, chords, chord progressions,
- Youtube channel with lots of videos

*BAD*

- you need a minimum of 64GB of RAM to use quality sample libraries because you will be loading dozens of instances of Kontakt (or whatever software you use)
- Interface is quite complex for beginners, there is no “simplified mode”.
- The logic is hard to grasp at first (which is OK) BUT there is no help file with an index for reference, only videos on some aspects (The “help” menu is just a short "what’s new in the latest version". (I asked them about this and they said, I quote “Yeah. We are aware that we have a significantly lacking software manual.”)
- Many - _many_ - display problems (interface is crammed / the different visualisations of the same blocks are not aligned / windows overlap without being easily distinguishable / on a PC popup bubbles or right click menus appear for 1/10th of a second). And many more problems...
- The website is extremely slow and buggy; connections are dodgy, display is a massive pain. I stopped using it
- Orchestral arrangements are not realistic: too many notes, and too many blocks that need to be changed entirely with so many options
- Changing one little thing will often completely change all your patiently composed blocks, even if they are “locked”!
- You cannot create new templates that will appear when you open Orb or start a new file.
- when you add instruments to an empty file in order to create a template, importing a midi melody with result in nothing in the blocks.
- Sample libraries are not included (except piano): you need to link Orb with an external application like Kontakt, etc. And a full orchestra loaded in Kontakt linked with Orb will freeze or crash the system (I quote “it’s a known bug”)
- Presence on Discord is limited, maybe because the forum itself is quite empty. No other online community that I know of
- With midi import, the tempo and meter of the original file are not respected (I quote “This isn't a bug as much as it a feature”: ?!?!). For example, uploading a simple 6/8 tune at 200bpm will produce an orchestration as a 4/4 tune at 120bpm, which does not recognize the structure of the tune at all and is 100% useless
- Crashes often, both on Mac and PC (eg 1/ on Windows 7, once had to completely reinstall after deleting all Orb references with regedit; eg2/ on Mac, crashed when clicking on a clip after importing a very simple midi file)
- Staff is really not helpful even for paying customers (I have seen so many times: “it’s a known bug”). And bugs don’t seem to be seriously tackled over time.
- Very complex integration with Logic and other DAWs (even if templates are provided, still very complex); staff not very helpful again (I mentioned a problem on Logic and was told: “I don’t have access to a Mac”).
- clicking on the left arrow (at the top) to go back to the beginning doesn’t bring the display to the beginning.
- Nothing for SONAR / Cakewalk-BandLab
- Full version is 399€!
- Doesn’t seem ready, more like a Beta v0.5.
- Staff refuses to acknowledge the problems.

*ANNOYING STUFF*
- No warning to save when you open another file with midi import
- Never opens in full-screen mode on Win. You cannot change this.
- When Orb is opened or a new file created, it is automatically in loop mode. You cannot change this.
- Cannot change the musical mode after midi import (eg from C to C Dorian) or else, it changes the chords you have chosen. You cannot “lock” the chords.
- No general “solo off button” and “mute off button”
- Many functions that open a folder do not go to last used folder (but systematically to Library/Music on Win and Music on Mac): you need to create your own shortcuts/aliases
- Undo and redo (in the edit menu) do not name the operations in question (eg undo paste, undo delete block, etc.)
- for some reason, the first note of your imported melody will disappear most of the time
- the space bar will start playing, as in every serious music software, but the 0 key does not take you to the beginning of the track


*CONCLUSION*
+ Very comprehensive and flexible
- The learning curve is quite steep, needs a very powerful computer, direct staff support is almost non-existent and certainly not helpful, very expensive.

Aimed at pro composers with a solid experience in composition. But they will need to seriously rethink their software and listen to customers if they want to survive.

*CONTEXT*
I wanted to learn about orchestration. I’m 55 and I’ve had a digital home studio since 1988 (Atari + Steinberg Pro24). I can’t read nor write music but I play a couple of instruments and I can explain what D Dorian means.


----------



## BluesCat

Good review. I am also an owner of the "Full" version. Some of the cons can be lessened by using OC to drive a DAW (I use Studio One). I am not holding my breath for any updates- They shut down their Discord server a month or more ago. I think they have folded already.


----------



## Freddyspow

Bonjour à tous, merci pour ces commentaires, pour ma part la principale et énorme limite d'Orb Composer est d'avoir à charger un vst pour chaque instrument. J'utilise d'abord Kontakt dans Cubase et je trouve absurde d'avoir à en charger une instance pour chaque instrument Orb. Il me semble que le standard midi a été pensé pour éviter ce genre de problème et Orb propose donc un retour en arrière inacceptable. S'il avait encore d'autres instruments intégrés ou la possibilité de jouer des soundfonts basiques, mais non ... Après 2 jours de test j'abandonne


----------



## ChristianM

Freddyspow said:


> Bonjour à tous, merci pour ces commentaires, pour ma part la principale et énorme limite d'Orb Composer est d'avoir à charger un vst pour chaque instrument. J'utilise d'abord Kontakt dans Cubase et je trouve absurde d'avoir à en charger une instance pour chaque instrument Orb. Il me semble que le standard midi a été pensé pour éviter ce genre de problème et Orb propose donc un retour en arrière inacceptable. S'il avait encore d'autres instruments intégrés ou la possibilité de jouer des soundfonts basiques, mais non ... Après 2 jours de test j'abandonne


Le logiciel ne vaut rien de toute façon…


----------



## Dollismine

Freddy, regarde en fin de page précédente, peut-être que ça t'aidera mais clairement, si tu passes par Cubase, le mieux est de ne pas charger toutes tes articulations et de modifier les "rôles" dans ORB pour que ça corresponde avec tes articulations chargées.
Suffisant pour faire un sketch de départ, ensuite tu oublies ORB et tu reprends ton rôle de compositeur


----------



## Freddyspow

[QUOTE = "Dollismine, message: 4548649, membre: 22529"]
Freddy, regarde en fin de page précédente, peut-être que ça t'aidera mais clair, si tu passe par Cubase, le mieux est de ne pas charger toutes tes articulations et de modifier les "rôles" dans ORB pour que ça ça corresponde avec tes articulations chargées.
Suffisant pour faire un sketch de départ, ensuite tu oublies ORB et tu reprends ton rôle de compositeur 
[/ CITATION]
Yes Dollismine, I saw the method you recommended, thank you for this post.
It is true that a priori I do not pour in the symphonic but rather in synthpop, house or ambient, the number of vst to launch a project start therefore remains limited for me. So I need two or three templates, I will try that and see what it looks like, let's not be obtuse ...
But the fact remains that softs like Rapid Composer are more consistent by being Vst plugins themselves which interact directly within the DAW, even if the management of the chords is not as subtle as in ORB. A mix of these 2 softs would be great!


----------



## Dollismine

For Pop, house, ambient, ORB is clearly *****
My use is only for Orchestral, and even if the result are very random, sometimes you can have interesting idea. It helps you to go out to your style.
Of course, it's not John Williams but....this is a tool, not a finality. At least for Orchetral.

Other style are crappy, right.


----------



## jonathanparham

Dollismine said:


> For Pop, house, ambient, ORB is clearly *****


I don't understand your comment


----------



## jcrosby

I own Orb, (but didn't do the 1.5 update. I bought it 2 months prior and they wouldn't waive even part of the upgrade fee. Miserable support for sure.) Not to mention it was buggy and shoddy from day one.

Anyway I've found Scaler to be a much more useful replacement. Thought I'd post this if people are looking for alternatives..

If you prefer to start with a random orchestrated idea Scaler might not be what you're after. However if you're mainly looking for something to help you bridge some harmony or theory gaps, find chord substitutions, parallel harmony in descending order of similarity, etc, Scaler's a lot more useful.

Scaler 2 will be bringing a more generative approach that starts to get closer to something like Orb, but doesn't "suggest" ideas. (Which is what I like about it.) You steer the ship, the technology bridges the theory/harmony gap, and allows you to be as complex, diatonic or non-diatonic as you want.

Scaler 2's releasing at the end of May, if curious about an alternative check the videos linked below and see if it looks interesting to you...


----------



## Dollismine

Looks very more complex, not the same goal & approach but very very interesting !
Thanks for share !!


----------



## Freddyspow

jcrosby said:


> I own Orb, (but didn't do the 1.5 update. I bought it 2 months prior and they wouldn't waive even part of the upgrade fee. Miserable support for sure.) Not to mention it was buggy and shoddy from day one.
> 
> Anyway I've found Scaler to be a much more useful replacement. Thought I'd post this if people are looking for alternatives..
> 
> If you prefer to start with a random orchestrated idea Scaler might not be what you're after. However if you're mainly looking for something to help you bridge some harmony or theory gaps, find chord substitutions, parallel harmony in descending order of similarity, etc, Scaler's a lot more useful.
> 
> Scaler 2 will be bringing a more generative approach that starts to get closer to something like Orb, but doesn't "suggest" ideas. (Which is what I like about it.) You steer the ship, the technology bridges the theory/harmony gap, and allows you to be as complex, diatonic or non-diatonic as you want.
> 
> Scaler 2's releasing at the end of May, if curious about an alternative check the videos linked below and see if it looks interesting to you...



Yes thanks
actually Scaler is exactly what I need
I don't need an app that melts a melody, a rhythm or an accompaniment. I tried several, the cleverest remaining Rapid Composer which crosses the routing squares on which Orb Composer remains blocked, but this kind of software brings me more confusion than ease, it's funny at the start but quickly I find myself stuck in the musical intentions of the programmer and it instantly dilutes my inspiration! On the other hand I need a tool allowing me to exceed my poor knowledge in harmony and to enrich my chord progressions, various tools exist for that but this one seems really top


----------



## jcrosby

Freddyspow said:


> Yes thanks
> actually Scaler is exactly what I need
> I don't need an app that melts a melody, a rhythm or an accompaniment. I tried several, the cleverest remaining Rapid Composer which crosses the routing squares on which Orb Composer remains blocked, but this kind of software brings me more confusion than ease, it's funny at the start but quickly I find myself stuck in the musical intentions of the programmer and it instantly dilutes my inspiration! On the other hand I need a tool allowing me to exceed my poor knowledge in harmony and to enrich my chord progressions, various tools exist for that but this one seems really top


Scaler 2's supposed to release May 27th. Also agree, I basically bought Orb to help out with some of the more complex harmony, hoping it would make substitutions easy, etc. Scaler already does this well but with the circle of 5ths feature coming in version 2 this should be even easier and allow for more choices.

The great thing is it's only $49. Not sure if version 2 will cost more, even if so the price is still a huge bargain compared to Orb and the more expensive options. (Not to mention they are incredibly open to feedback and feature suggestions.)


----------



## szczaw

I just got Orb Composer on sale for %50 off. I think the full price is way too much for software that is very unstable. I have growing library of phrases and I though that Orb could be useful for quickly harmonizing, previewing different instruments and narrowing down the selection. That works very well. Anything more and the software crashes :(

Orb could use Synfire's chord palettes. What they currently have is rather primitive in comparison.


----------



## dzilizzi

szczaw said:


> I just got Orb Composer on sale for %50 off. I think the full price is way too much for software that is very unstable. I have growing library of phrases and I though that Orb could be useful for quickly harmonizing, previewing different instruments and narrowing down the selection. That works very well. Anything more and the software crashes :(
> 
> Orb could use Synfire's chord palettes. What they currently have is rather primitive in comparison.


I like Synfire in some ways, but in others, Orb is so much easier to use. 

And? I haven't got much that is usable from either. But they are useful for learning.


----------



## szczaw

dzilizzi said:


> I like Synfire in some ways, but in others, Orb is so much easier to use.
> 
> And? I haven't got much that is usable from either. But they are useful for learning.



I demoed Synfire and I only found chord extraction and editing with the palettes useful (Harmony Navigator advance part). The whole re-harmonization paradigm that is the selling point of the software is too fiddly. In Orb, with a click of a button you get the whole block refilled with new instruments and phrases. There's nothing of that sort in SF. Instead, you can drag an drop notes from prviously created library or imported midi, which I find irritating and the end result in not as cohesive.


----------



## szczaw

Reassessment is in order: Orb is a lot more stable here with ASIO.


----------



## JalalAli

Rowy said:


> Years ago I found a plugin that builds chord progressions in a classical manner with excellent voice leading. It was written by someone who knew his theory. That plugin was way more useful than OCP. It didn't write melodies, but an interesting and well sounding chord progression is what most learning composers need. A melody is not that difficult to write.
> 
> I forgot the name of that plugin, but perhaps someone else will remember.


I don't know if you mean "Harmony Builder". They claim to build chord progressions in a classical manner, and it can check for voice leading errors, or suggest a next chord based on harmony rules

I am interested in buying it, but I cannot find a lot of reviews.
In addition, it doesn't seem to be user friendly. I watched a video on YT and the workflow is a hassle imho


----------



## ChristianM

Use Synfire Pro…


----------



## InLight-Tone

Rapid Composer is far better in my opinion, BUT, you need to know music theory to get the most out of it. It helps to automate the tedious processes of writing music on many fronts, and I'm not talking about using the Generators to spit out some semi-random sequences. Anyone who thinks software is going to compose a compelling track for them with ZERO effort is in for a rude awakening...


----------



## dzilizzi

InLight-Tone said:


> Rapid Composer is far better in my opinion, BUT, you need to know music theory to get the most out of it. It helps to automate the tedious processes of writing music on many fronts, and I'm not talking about using the Generators to spit out some semi-random sequences. Anyone who thinks software is going to compose a compelling track for them with ZERO effort is in for a rude awakening...


If you have Rapid Composer, either on KVR or Gearspace they have a manufacturer thread with a whole bunch of importable phrases that are things like runs and ostinatos. Some user made and shared them. 

I think Synfire has a lot more capability, but it is more complicated to use. I'm still trying to figure it out. Rapid Composer is definitely more usable off the bat.


----------

