# 8Dio: What Hall are you recording in?



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 3, 2014)

Greetings,

I could not find some information on the Hall where you recorded Cage and perhaps other libraries as well.

What I could find was recorded at...."epic Hall", "symphonic Hall", "one of the greatest symphony halls in the world" etc.

So, if this is not an NSA protected secret :lol: I would love to learn more about the Hall or Halls where Cage, 8W and other libraries were recorded at.

I also could not find any reference to the orchestra you worked with for the 8W production. Would be nice if you could share this information. 

Thanks
G


----------



## StatKsn (Jan 3, 2014)

+1

I also thought it is quite a bit strange that we have no information where/with-who they have recorded their larger-than-life orchestral sound of 8W. I would love to see the pic of it like they did in Liberis, or like many other developers (CineSamples, EWQL, Heavyocity, Spitfire and Vienna to name a few) does.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 3, 2014)

I was spending some time on their site and looking over the face-yuck-book page, but could not find any Information. 

I would like to say that I am more than only curious about the orchestra and hall, and in a way, this information is also influencing my purchasing decision.

I always like to know what musicians I am honored to have playing my music. 

On single Instrument's such as Mark Deutsch’s Bazantar was good informative background available, personally I wish for the same information for their orchestral libraries.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 3, 2014)

Personally, I could not care less about knowing the room or the players. I play, I close my eyes and listen, and either like what I am hearing or I don't.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 3, 2014)

Why does it matter? Shouldn't the recording and what you hear mean more? GOS was recorded in a famous place, but compared to most of the current libs, it sounds inconsistent and arguably not as good. A great engineer or producer can make a 1st gen amp Sim sound way better than a boutique amp and vintage mic by a crap engineer (or one with different personal preferences... hell a shitty might make that amp Sim sound better.

Blind listening might be a better way to go.... unless you are looking to recreate the hall to match things with impulses.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 3, 2014)

Adagio was apparently recorded in a church somewhere. Not sure that they ever specified where.


----------



## Graham Keitch (Jan 3, 2014)

Adagio strings in a church, woodwind in a symphony hall - rather inconsistent unlike some of the other developers already mentioned. I think it DOES matter unless you're only going to use close up mics and add your own room verb. Rightly or wrongly this is a turn-off for me.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 3, 2014)

I asked the same question some month ago but also got no answer... .


----------



## midi_controller (Jan 3, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> Personally, I could not care less about knowing the room or the players. I play, I close my eyes and listen, and either like what I am hearing or I don't.



What if you really dig the sound of the room and want to go record some stuff there, maybe even with the same musicians? I don't think it's a very odd question to ask.


----------



## Jordan Gagne (Jan 3, 2014)

midi_controller @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I could not care less about knowing the room or the players. I play, I close my eyes and listen, and either like what I am hearing or I don't.
> ...



Agreed, this falls into the "basic information that is not NECESSARY but has come to be expected" category and I don't understand the secrecy.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 3, 2014)

midi_controller @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I could not care less about knowing the room or the players. I play, I close my eyes and listen, and either like what I am hearing or I don't.
> ...



Didn't say it was odd, said personally I don't care. And sadly, the days when that scenario was plausible for me are probably history.


----------



## mk282 (Jan 3, 2014)

Could be this since they recorded V8P there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capellen_Music_Production


----------



## 1stClass2dRateComposer (Jan 3, 2014)

The 8Dio instruments certainly SOUND fantastic. Perhaps the answer will prove that you don't need to record at AIR or Newman in L.A. to have top-shelf sounds? All the more reason to love the genius of the 8Dio artists.

That said, one might say that the room and its characteristics do matter and for more than just informational or marketing reasons. E.g., look at all the work that Peter Alexander describes in his tutorials about matching reverb tails, etc. so that certain libraries will blend together the "right" way. He breaks down information for: CineSamples, EW Hollywood Series, EW QLSO, Spitfire Audio, Vienna, Berlin Woodwinds, Cinematic Strings, LASS, Sample Modeling, and Symphobia. But not 8Dio.


----------



## StatKsn (Jan 3, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> Personally, I could not care less about knowing the room or the players. I play, I close my eyes and listen, and either like what I am hearing or I don't.



This is right. But I'm just -personally very- curious to see how they record my favorite libraries.


----------



## G.E. (Jan 3, 2014)

I think it does matter and it's a pertinent question.If you expect me to buy your library,you should also expect that maybe I need to blend it with other libraries from different companies.In that case,knowing about the room makes it 10 times easier to do it.


----------



## stevetwist (Jan 3, 2014)

G.E. @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> I think it does matter and it's a pertinent question.If you expect me to buy your library,you should also expect that maybe I need to blend it with other libraries from different companies.In that case,knowing about the room makes it 10 times easier to do it.



+1


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 3, 2014)

G.E. @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> I think it does matter and it's a pertinent question.If you expect me to buy your library,you should also expect that maybe I need to blend it with other libraries from different companies.In that case,knowing about the room makes it 10 times easier to do it.



I call hz percussion as proof that this isn't the case. Mic placement, instrument placement, signal chain, and mix mean just as much. Using only knowledge of the room to base your recreation is akin to mixing visually. While yes it can help. In most ears and hands it probably does more damage. And if you happen to have the ears that actually can use the info info wisely. You don't need it.

The moreinhear peoples mixes in which they try so wholeheartedly to recreate 
/match rooms. The more shitier mixes I hear in this place. Less focus on balance, power and overtones, too much on absolute 3d positioning. Making box in a box mixes that sound like the equivalent of auditory blister packaging.

Just my own opine tho. I'm not saying that room doesn't matter, nut once you're mixing and matching different recordings, it begets diminishing returns from most to focus on absolute matching, because they tend to ignore the rest of the signal chain and mix.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 3, 2014)

To be honest, I got some mails, people were asking about the sound of these libs. 

They asked me about it because they trust my ears.... . "Gunther, I am un-sure, are these recordings done with different mic positions or is it fake? Did they only add a reverb? ...... .

I would like to know where all the recordings were done and what orchestra was booked for this... .

Beside this: I love the Sound and libs from 8Dio!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 3, 2014)

KingIdiot @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> G.E. @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it does matter and it's a pertinent question.If you expect me to buy your library,you should also expect that maybe I need to blend it with other libraries from different companies.In that case,knowing about the room makes it 10 times easier to do it.
> ...



Yep.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 3, 2014)

jamwerks @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> Adagio was apparently recorded in a church somewhere. Not sure that they ever specified where.



It was recorded in an undefined church in San Francisco.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 3, 2014)

in tuth, you have and incredible amount of resource to emulate teh signal/sound of the room. More info than knowledge of the actual room/recording space.

you have a large range of chromatic samples at different volumes, dynamics and with different air/sound pressure recordings to test the broadband and tonal response of the signal chain. This should be more than enough for someone who can spend time actually using room dimension knowledge to get things to sound good.

I say sound good, not emulate positioning. Because, again. I think this is what's hurting a lot of people's mixes.

Of course an orcehstra sample lib recorded in the same room with the same mics and same positioning on the same day is going to sound the best at being coherent. But mixing and matching is already detrimental to the process of emulating positioning. 

Unless you're doing some ridiculous model based, or blind deconvolution and then reconstructing and matching mix phase.

Your best option is to go with some sort of overtone/harmonic modelling, closer to what ERnest Cholokis does, and then playing further with phase and reflection data.

I mean if you're working based on math and going with dimensions, you might as well go a little more detailed and try to emulate response.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 3, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> jamwerks @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Adagio was apparently recorded in a church somewhere. Not sure that they ever specified where.
> ...



wrong. It's not my place to share the actual info, but this isn't entirely correct.


----------



## G.E. (Jan 3, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> jamwerks @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Adagio was apparently recorded in a church somewhere. Not sure that they ever specified where.
> ...



Close enough :lol: ... 
http://www.superpages.com/yellowpages/C ... Francisco/


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 3, 2014)

G.E. @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Sat Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > jamwerks @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> ...



and NONE of those are correct . I'm also a bay area native, so trust that there are some amazing places in SF to record, some wonderful churches, but some ugly reflections some times as well.

to be fair, SF bay area is a more correct description of where. So expand that search a bit


----------



## G.E. (Jan 3, 2014)

KingIdiot @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> G.E. @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it does matter and it's a pertinent question.If you expect me to buy your library,you should also expect that maybe I need to blend it with other libraries from different companies.In that case,knowing about the room makes it 10 times easier to do it.
> ...



That may be so... But personally I can say that knowing the room size and reverb tail of AIR Lyndhurst helped me a lot to get BWW close to the same sound.I'm not quite there yet but it would've taken me a lot longer to get here without knowing those things.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 3, 2014)

G.E. @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> That may be so... But personally I can say that knowing the room size and reverb tail of AIR Lyndhurst helped me a lot to get BWW close to the same sound.I'm not quite there yet but it would've taken me a lot longer to get here without knowing those things.



as I said, you ahve that info in the chromatic samples. You have full range of broadband and tonal and multiple sound pressure levels/variations with each library. Staccato, sustain, all at different volumes. sometimes crecendo and decrecendos. Sometimes different directions (horns vs bones vs etc).

knowing the dimensions of a church or room doesn't really do much if you don't know if there were pews, if there was re enforcement, where the mics were placed, f there were supliment mics mixed into the varied mic choices, where the players were positioned.... blah blah blah.

seriously. I get that knowng the exact dimensions of a room seems all important. but you're not going to get some sort of "basic reverb information" of a library from that alone. Especially one not recorded in traditional film orchestra positioning/placement like Adagio (it seems so backwards for this forum, that anyone try to emulate this recording, when it's always about matching to film/orchestral recordings)

knowing it's a church might help you pic an impulse close for sure. Stone, high ceilings..etc. That's probably more than enough info with combination of the analyzing (or I dunno ... listening to ) the chromatic sampling to get you there.

Adagio is an awesome lib, and I really dig the sound you can get from it, but anyone listening can hear that classic mid range bump that you tend to get in many churches. It has a luscious low build up though, that you can hear in the bass demos. Use what oyu hear to help make your mix.

Maybe, I'm jsut too much of an engineer, but I just can't let stuff like this slide in discussions about matching/mixing.


----------



## Blake Ewing (Jan 3, 2014)

Here's my guess, and it's only that.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Jan 3, 2014)

from the sound of Adagio I would have thought there would be more comfortable seating.

Maybe a recliner, lazy boy or 2.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 3, 2014)

KingIdiot @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > jamwerks @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> ...



I read someplace that it was an undisclosed church in SF. 

Here's a picture from Colin's site, though it's not stated if this is the Adagio session.
http://www.colinomalley.com/index.php/projects/


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Jan 3, 2014)

The Picture on Colin's site is Ocean Way in Nashville, i know as I was there. Just for clarification that session was not a sampling session.

Just for fun you can go to my site

www.scoredog.tv

and check the windows compared to Colin's pic.

Obviously it was an old church too.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 3, 2014)

Jordan Gagne @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> midi_controller @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> ...



My last comment on this:

Sometimes, and I'm not saying it's the case here, but sometimes it's in the agreement that they can't share that info. Maybe there's a deal that they're recording in a place that doesn't want it known that they've allowed this. Maybe its in another contractual issue.

I'm not saying that these guys aren't going to share the info and get it out to you guys. They probably don't give a shit.

All I'm doing in this thread is playing devil's advocate. Trying to prove that it's not as important as everyone would have everyone believe in this thread.

if you're spending time matching and really getting into that far f the nitty gritty in mixing. You have most of the assets available to get close with listening and timing tails. Probably more information in the assets than you'd get knowing the actual room. Again using the "visual" approach to this, and cherry picking information in the recording process.

You can't cherry pick with physics... well.. actually you can... but you know what I mean.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 3, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> KingIdiot @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Alexander @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> ...



SF Bay Area is a lot larger than SF is what I meant. So you might as well just say "church".


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 3, 2014)

Now I can't wait for getting the answer. Where did they the recordings with what orchestras?


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 3, 2014)

KingIdiot @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> 
> 
> > jamwerks @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> ...



From the 8Dio site:



> • Recorded in rich church.... recorded in a signature church environment with a hand-selected group of great cellists from the San Francisco Bay Area.



Requiem was recorded in a SF church. From the manual:



> ...was recorded in one of the oldest and most known cathedrals in SF.



There are a few guesses there, the first being Old St Mary's, built in 1854. The next would be Grace Cathedral. But it could be another, of course.

Does this mean that Adagio was recorded in the same place as Req? Probably, but maybe not.

I disagree with the sentiment that knowing where the recording took place makes it easier to blend it with other libraries. Let's say it is in fact Old St Mary's, and you were able to get hold of the dimensions. How exactly does that help you? It's not like you can sit there and say, "well, AIR is X*x*Y, and Old St Mary's is X*x*Y, therefore to get Adagio to blend with Albion, I need to do Z." Because you cant say that. The mic positioning has a TON to do with the overall sound and ambience. Not to mention where the musicians were set up. Were they towards the middle? Near the back wall? Were baffles used? There are so many variables, that knowing the location of the recording is not going to help you one bit. You have to do it the old fashioned way - work at it until you get it right.

Cheers.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 3, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Fri Jan 03 said:


> KingIdiot @ Sat Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Alexander @ Fri Jan 03 said:
> ...



I know I posted a lot in this thread, but I clarified, that it's not San francisco, but the bay area which is much larger, than just SF. Which again like I said, means about as much as "church" (and also thought we were talking about adagio not requiem)

but the rest of what you sy is exactly what I've said above, and so I agree. I know where, I've never recorded there, but it doesn't matter to me, it's the sound of the recordings that do.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 3, 2014)

@Riff - Thank you for validating I still have a memory...

RE: Dimensions. With the Ircam Studio series plug-ins, their concept of room design is based on cubic meters. So if you can determine/find out the cubic meters of the space and the RT60 you can emulate the space, but not duplicate the sound of it. 

For those who are more advanced in audio, and have good ears, with Verb and Spat, you have controls to literally design and shape the ERs. 

[click the graphic to the right labeled "Reverb View"]
http://www.fluxhome.com/products/plug_ins/ircam_spat

Spat is not MIR. MIR is a stage and based on IRs. With Spat you're creating a room/stage and it's algorithmic. 

With Ircam, you must know the cubic meters. 

In Logic Platinum Verb, you'll see that in creating your own reverb, it asks you for the length in meters. 

So - do you _need_ to know dimensions? Only if the reverb asks for it! Otherwise, no.

The tool most required for this, especially spatially placing, is a good set of ears and patience to develop them to learn what to listen for. 

It can't be crammed.


----------



## korgscrew (Jan 4, 2014)

It could be the same place soundiron record too. They always say special church. 

I find 8dio adagio quite dry on releases. Which is great as I can add my own tail.


----------



## StatKsn (Jan 4, 2014)

Special church?! I-I-It must be here.

https://www.google.com/search?q=air+for ... l&tbm=isch


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 4, 2014)

Greetings,

I do not expect Troels to spend a lot of time in the Sample Blah section of VIC, hence I sent a link for him via 8Dio support section when I started this thread.

As for the interesting technical aspects that emerged, yes of course, there is more to just knowing the dimensions of a room. 

It starts with a basic CAD model, sound sources, positiong, mic placements and oddities such as absorbtion coefficients of specific surfaces and many more parameters. Yes, I know SPAT, and there is a lot of very different software that deals with generating exact representations of reverberation times and characteristics of existing and not yet exisiting rooms. It is acoustic simulation that is used by engineers when you conceptualize a recording studio, new stage, hall or theater for example. You would have access to a comprehensive database of different accoustic materials, database of loudspeakers and more to generate models and "play with" large sets of parameters and tools such as Reflectogram, Energy Time Curve, different pressure levels, 3D directional and relative levels, clarity measures, to name but a few from probing alone. The process is usually know to engineers as auralisation and programs such as EASE or ODEON are the usual suspects of their choice.

As I said, pretty interesting and sophisticated stuff, really, but wait a second, I would think that a request for sharing where 8W and Cage was recorded at, and what orchestra was commissioned for the recording is a valid and legitimate question, even without being in the business of auralisation. :wink: :D 

Best
Georg


----------



## re-peat (Jan 4, 2014)

G.R. Baumann @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> (...) is a valid and legitimate question (...)


Maybe. Though I'm of the opinion that it qualifies as totally useless information.
Whatever sort of of space may be captured in your samples, there’s very little that remains of it (except for the timbral character of the combination "source & spatial response", as defined _during the recordings of the samples_) the moment these samples become actors in the farce that is a multi-library mock-up. (‘Multi-library’ implying: libraries from different developers.)

Say, you start with Adagio: okay, your space is still there (at least, some piled-up, lifeless snapshots of it are), but then you bring in an another library (brass, piano, percussion, whatever), and then yet another, and you pour some reverb over the combination (to, hopefully, simulate the synchronized swimming of all these spatially unrelated sounds), and _voom!_, there goes your original Adagio space. Completely contaminated and compromised, and therefore no longer of any real importance whatsoever. (Provided you’re not completely deaf to its intrinsic suggestion of size and character, that is.)

The only time the recorded space is truly meaningful (and able to shine), is when you adhere strictly to a regime of libraries from one developer, say, Spitfire. And then there are no space-matching problems to begin with because everything falls automatically into place anyway (assuming there is some consistency to your mic perspective choices of course). 
Simply listen to Andy Blaney’s work: totally natural, totally homogenous and consistent, from top to bottom, from left to right, from front to back, and as such effortlessly convincing. And also the only Spitfire demos, in my view, that genuinely exploit the beneficial presence of the recording venue, unpolluted as they are by sounds that carry other sonic and spatial stamps.

But if you blend libraries (from different developers), like most of us tend to do, it doesn’t matter one bit where Adagio was recorded. Well, it does ― or at least: it did ― but only to the extent that the recording venue obviously had some effect on the sonic colour of the samples. But beyond that, that recording venue simply becomes a completely anonymous spatial suggestion ― and: one among several ― the moment these samples enter your mock-up.

Even if they released IR’s from the location where Adagio was recorded, I wouldn’t bother.

_


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 4, 2014)

re-peat @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> G.R. Baumann @ Sat Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) is a valid and legitimate question (...)
> ...



My question is valid, and it does not rely on implied assumptions, whether the answer is useful for me or not is outside your realm of knowledge.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 4, 2014)

Piet, I was not familiar with Andy Blaney so I just went here to listen:
http://www.andrewblaney.com/index/demo/Audio%20Clips/

Nice certainly, but not "all that" IMHO. But these are older demos so maybe nowadays it is even better.


----------



## re-peat (Jan 4, 2014)

Jay, 
This is the place to listen: http://www.spitfireaudio.com/demos

Georg,
Yes, your question is most certainly valid, and the answer(s) may very well be extremely useful to you, absolutely. I should have phrased my opening lines a bit more carefully. Sorry about that.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 4, 2014)

re-peat @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> Jay,
> This is the place to listen: http://www.spitfireaudio.com/demos



Thanks, Piet. I just listened to about 1 minute each of four of those and it is immediately obvious to me that you are correct about the consistency.

That said, my guess is that he could do the same with a blend of libraries as well, but I could be wrong.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 4, 2014)

As an engineer, who loves information and loves technical aspects of recordings and tweaking away on mixes, all I have to say on this thread is.

What a useless thread of babbling, upon information that, IMO, useless in the realm of mixing orchestral samples, unless you're doing deconvolution.

Good Luck on your endeavors.

to quote someone I respect about all this stuff:

"doesn't anyone make music anymore?"


----------



## hector (Jan 4, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> Nice certainly, but not "all that" IMHO. But these are older demos so maybe nowadays it is even better.


is funny because i remember these from posted at NS and these are all live recordings of BBC orchestra except for one and none are sample demos.. 

i guess live recordings are even better nowadays :D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 4, 2014)

hector @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice certainly, but not "all that" IMHO. But these are older demos so maybe nowadays it is even better.
> ...



Really? No wonder American orchestras are always better than the BBC


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 4, 2014)

KingIdiot @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> As an engineer, who loves information and loves technical aspects of recordings and tweaking away on mixes, all I have to say on this thread is.
> 
> What a useless thread of babbling, upon information that, IMO, useless in the realm of mixing orchestral samples, unless you're doing deconvolution.
> 
> ...



Getting a mite cranky, King?


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 4, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> KingIdiot @ Sat Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > As an engineer, who loves information and loves technical aspects of recordings and tweaking away on mixes, all I have to say on this thread is.
> ...



it's been a long long week. but I just can't understand the use of this information, and it being any real help in the realm of mock-up'ing. Only in technical aspects and reverse engineering, or purely theoretical conceptualizing.

but in this thread specifically, if you read it, it's misinformation, guesstimating and drain circling. Not that I didn't add to the confusion with multiple posting, but really,... what a bunch of useless crap, about useless crap.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 4, 2014)

I don't disagree but if we filtered out all the useless crap from discussions here, there would be little left


----------



## kb123 (Jan 4, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> hector @ Sat Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jan 04 said:
> ...



Coming from someone who always says he never criticizes another persons work in public, I really hope you were joking, smiley face or not you are not going to improve Anglo American relations with statements like that


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 4, 2014)

OF COURSE I was joking.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jan 4, 2014)

I tend to be of the same opinion as King on this one. Perhaps 8dio view their recording venue more as their own little "trade secret." That's OK, isn't it?

It's like we're two steps away from asking: "Well, what kind of strings and bows were they using?"

- Mike


----------



## re-peat (Jan 4, 2014)

KingIdiot @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> (...) what a bunch of useless crap, about useless crap.


As useful contributions go, you didn't exactly hit the bull's eye with this one either, did you?

_


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 4, 2014)

re-peat @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> KingIdiot @ Sat Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) what a bunch of useless crap, about useless crap.
> ...



we all have off days, but im pretty sure i contributed a bunch of actual info on this thread, my ratio in posts is probably a lot better and helpful an good natured than some other people get told. 

bu sure, if you want to quote specific parts of a post, you might as well take all myswearing, and sarcasm and put it into a quote and make me a foul mouth'd asshole

wait, it'd be pretty accurate... since I am a foulmouth'd asshole


----------



## re-peat (Jan 4, 2014)

You certainly did, and I'm sure it is.

_


----------



## Jordan Gagne (Jan 4, 2014)

Well, I can see the importance of knowing which 8dio libraries were recorded where -- i.e. which ones were recorded in the same place.

Right now it's kind of fuzzy as to what was recorded where and whether they are the same venue. I could see that being useful.


----------



## feck (Jan 4, 2014)

Is there any good reason for them NOT to disclose where they do their recordings?


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 4, 2014)

feck @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> Is there any good reason for them NOT to disclose where they do their recordings?



Contractual agreements. Secret place to record so more people don't. Privacy while recording. Privacy of the venue.

Awe and myste... nah not that.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 5, 2014)

feck @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> Is there any good reason for them NOT to disclose where they do their recordings?



... or disclose the orchestras / soloists.

Let's just look at a single one: 



> The library, recorded in *one of the greatest symphony halls in the world *in 96kHz and using 8 microphone positions, contains 240 players across 100 strings, 60 brasses, 20 percussionists and 60 woodwinds



Privacey is not an issue, as such session are behind closed doors and per invitation only. Secret recording place as argued by Kingidiot is pretty far fetched for one of the greatest, or any hall in the world, really, and I do not think a hall operator would agree to a contract where only 8Dio is allowed to record there, I do not think 8Dio has that much funds available to pay them that. LOL

The halls are rented and musicians commissioned for the session. This is good business.

Anyone trying to tell me orchestras or soloists do not wish to be credited for their painstaking work? Now this would be a first.

I might send another support ticket reminder in a day or so. All this speculation is certainly interesting, but I think the producers statement would be needed here.


----------



## StrezovSampling (Jan 5, 2014)

G.R. Baumann @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> The halls are rented and musicians commissioned for the session. This is good business.
> 
> Anyone trying to tell me orchestras or soloists do not wish to be credited for their painstaking work? Now this would be a first.



Just to hop up re: churches. We recorded one library here in Bulgaria and we had some help from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church because it is a bit 'unorthodox' to record inside churches. It is not forbidden, but it's not something that will not be perceived well. This is why the priest asked us not to mention anywhere the exact name of the church we recorded the samples in - and you won't find such information inside our manual or promo materials. 

So sometimes it goes beyond the developer's wish.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 5, 2014)

Thank you George!

Yeah, I can imagine this scenario, but thankfully symphonic halls benefit from secularity. :D


----------



## Mike Marino (Jan 5, 2014)

At the end of the day it's 8dio's call on what information they want to relinquish to the public. It doesn't matter if they have a reason deemed to be good enough or not; the requested information is being held silent and I'd imagine it would stay that way. So you can email them again but I'm thinking that's not a question that's going to get answered....and if it does get answered, I'm not sure it'll happen before the other support emails from owners of the libraries get answered.

Regarding orchestra/soloist disclosure: If credits were to be given to these folks I'd imagine it would have been in the contract they signed.

- Mike


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 5, 2014)

We have different opinions here Mike. I get your point, however, any company claiming to have recorded their product in one of the greatest symphony halls in the world should expect that potential customers ask for proof where that was recorded at. At the end, it adds value and naturally is reflected in the pricing. 

There is a big difference whether a product is recorded in the hall of my local school with the orchestra from Lost Springs / Wyoming :wink: or... you get my drift. 

However, in case a company would choose not to answer such question at all by ignoring it, well, I would have a very strong opinion on that, but I keep that private.


----------



## OnKey (Jan 5, 2014)

Not sure this would be a support issue, or if it will be answered on a forum. 
Maybe it would be funner to just guess and go with it. Who are we to know. Maybe its somewhere we all know and love. and they don't want to begin competition with other companies? 

o-[][]-o


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 5, 2014)

OnKey @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> Not sure this would be a support issue, or if it will be answered on a forum.
> Maybe it would be funner to just guess and go with it. Who are we to know. Maybe its somewhere we all know and love. and they don't want to begin competition with other companies?
> 
> o-[][]-o



That's not about fun, but a product that has a considerable price tag.

You want to sell me something.
You make specific claims about the product.
I ask for proof.
You won't deliver.

I don't care for your reasons, you failed to deliver, no deal, I walk! Simpleton.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 5, 2014)

One more thing, all kind of angles were looked at now, and I think without a producers statement, there is nothing furher I can contribute in a meaningful way to this thread, so I just wait and see what happens. There is also no need for me to defend why I ask these questions, you might find them useless, others don't.

Thanks
Georg


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 5, 2014)

G.R. Baumann @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> OnKey @ Sun Jan 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure this would be a support issue, or if it will be answered on a forum.
> ...



I'll never get this thinking, over just listening and finding usefulness in a product. I get the sentiment, however draconian, I just can't see how it trumps sound and usability since that's what the end product is really about.

I'm not trying to demean or invalidate your wants or needs with this statements, just putting it out there on why I don't get it, but honestly .. and I do mean this, To each their own, and good luck. I don't feel either way that they will reveal or wont reveal. All I was doing was playing devils advocate.. mostly.


----------



## Andy B (Jan 5, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Jan 04 said:


> re-peat @ Sat Jan 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Jay,
> ...



Don't want to derail the thread, but just wanted to add that six of the ten tracks that are on my excuse for a website :D linked to earlier are indeed live. Of the mockups, two are over twelve years old and the most recent over five years and predate my involvement with Spitfire.

I know mine is a biased opinion as I work for Spitfire, but I can honestly say that I don't think I'd be able to get as good results with mixing libraries.

Thanks,

Andy.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 5, 2014)

KingIdiot @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> I'll never get this thinking, over just listening and finding usefulness in a product. I get the sentiment, however draconian, I just can't see how it trumps sound and usability since that's what the end product is really about.
> 
> I'm not trying to demean or invalidate your wants or needs with this statements, just putting it out there on why I don't get it, but honestly .. and I do mean this, To each their own, and good luck. I don't feel either way that they will reveal or wont reveal. All I was doing was playing devils advocate.. mostly.



No worries King, I hope your father is getting better and you catch up on some much needed sleep.

Best
Georg


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 5, 2014)

Andy B @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> I can honestly say that I don't think I'd be able to get as good results with mixing libraries.



Can't mix an orange with bacardi and claim it to be a Mojito. :wink: 

Love your demos!


----------



## Folmann (Jan 5, 2014)

Sigh.

So no one here ever used Symphobia - cause they didn't disclose the hall and it didn't match any other library? How about EW - took years before public learned what hall they used? How sad for VSL owners they cannot possibly mix their dry samples with any other library. How can you even make music by using drums recorded in one location - a bass recorded in another - mixed with piano recorded in yet another and then strings recorded in an ambient environment?

The thing people are forgetting is that its ALWAYS been this way - and it will continue to be this way - and here is why:

1. You can buy into the notion of hall hype all you want. But at the end of the day the performance quality of samples far outmatch any fancy specs we developer can create (ex. hall, resolution, amount/choice of mics). The same thing goes for music - I can point you to +1000 mega-hits that were recorded under less then ideal condition. When it comes to samples the performance is king and everything else is secondary. Does that mean halls/mics don't impact the sound? Of course not. But the main reason there are so many poor sample libraries in existence mostly relates to not capturing and designing performances correctly. 

2. Colin and I never bought into the notion of hall hype because its limiting. We recorded Claire in a more intimate hall setting - because we needed more presence in the woodwinds. We recorded Adagio in a lush church widely known for its amazing string sound - particular in regards to the way the instruments "sings" with the hall in regards to overtone/harmonics/air. We recorded 8W in a large symphonic hall which was heavily modified (yes - we modified the hall to create a specific type of reflection) and so the story goes. I recorded Requiem Professional in a handpicked cathedral, which is highly regarded for its choral qualities and so forth.

3. If you lock yourself down to one environment - your compositions will suffer. It's logical developers will try to claim their environment is the best, but it has little to do with reality and I don't know one successful composer that ONLY uses one environment for recording and NEVER blends samples from other environments. The reason for all this is that each instrument has different requirements. Take solo vocals for examples. The vast majority do not need ambient solo vocals, so its not a great idea to record them in your "signature environment" - since most users won't be able to use them. The same thing goes for most other solo instruments, since you "lock" the sound in, which is not always a great idea.

Anyway. I know this forum well enough to know its impossible to convince people. But we (8dio) choose our environments based on requirements of the individual instruments - not in an attempt to hype ourselves. We believe that performance is the most important element and the many great environments we use are best suited for the individual projects. Watch our videos and listen to our demos - use your ear. 

If you approach samples with "theory" you will fail - if you approach them with your "ear" you will win.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 5, 2014)

Folmann @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> If you approach samples with "theory" you will fail - if you approach them with your "ear" you will win.



I totally agree Troels.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Jan 5, 2014)

I agree completely with Troels. My template uses - for strings alone - samples recorded in at least 6 or 7 different places, and I manage to mix them together using my ears, as Troels said. 

I bet nobody will be able to tell in one of my pieces that THIS string sample was recorded in a hall and the next one is recorded on a stage and so on. And nobody will be able to tell which sample was recorded how and where and tell them apart in most situations. And we are talking different locations, different mic setups, different mixers, different section sizes and different musicians. And if you do it well you will make this work nicely.

I know many people seem to want that "the whole orchestra recorded in one place" scenario, and therefor they buy into VSL, Berlin Strings, Adagio, EastWest OR Spitfire - but I think they are seriously kidding themselves if they think that this will make 1) their music better or 2) their music SOUND better. Actually the opposite because no one library can cover everything in the best way, so you might be better off with using the staccatos from EastWest in combination with the sustains from Berlin - or maybe mix them together. It all depends on what sound you are after.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 5, 2014)

Good posts Simon and Troels, although Simon, I think Re-Peat would be able to tell. But we don't write for Piet, après tout.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Jan 5, 2014)

Ned: Haha he might


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 5, 2014)

It is all true what Troels says, no question! 

But it is no answer to the question in this thread. Why not tell the interested people where this great recording hall is? I mean, the reverb of this hall sounds outstanding to my ears, maybe better like a best reverb plug/hardware. Very good!


----------



## Synesthesia (Jan 5, 2014)

Just in relation to the suggestion of "hype"

We don't record the players we record in the studio we select because of "hype" for our libraries. We love the studios we record in, are happy to spread the word of how great they are, the tech teams, the engineers - particularly our lead engineer Jake and of course Geoff and Alan who recorded the HZ libraries. The room has a beautiful acoustic. We record in such a way that you can use as much or as little of that ambience as you want, with a variety of distances.

We are equally proud of our players, of the fact that they earn good fees, we pay them absolute top rate, and royalties as well. We are delighted to feature them by name - in fact this has led in the past to one of our players picking up films from three new composers in a single year who had all used their library and learned about them that way. Win win!

Its a massive benefit that once you have learned one Spitfire library you have learned them all. Lots of great, different sounding scores have been recorded at Air.

What you are buying into with us, is not just the idea of "everything recorded in one room" -- its a philosophical approach to performance and capturing samples in a particular way, while allowing you full and immediate hands on control of the performance. This is our aim. But its also not only that, its also the incredible, wonderful players here in London. Its their fabulous collection of priceless instruments. Its their long history of classical performance and session work, everything from Vaughan Williams to the Beatles, from Stravinsky to Elton John, from John Adams to Sting, from Bond, Hannibal, Harry Potter, Star Wars, to Paul Weller, Courtney Pine, Ed Harcourt and the Pet Shop Boys.

But finally: having been lucky enough to use our bespoke library for the last 5 years, I can confirm that there is a magic to having the full orchestra recorded in that beautiful studio with that signal chain, with our hard won bag of tricks and techniques to engineer maximum life into the recordings.

Anyway -- just wanted to throw in my tuppence.

(I don't disagree of course, that you can make fine tracks and write emotional and accomplished music with sounds from different sources, I did that for a long time prior to starting this crazy pursuit of sample development.)

Cheers!

Paul


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 5, 2014)

Synesthesia @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> Just in relation to the suggestion of "hype"
> 
> We don't record the players we record in the studio we select because of "hype" for our libraries. We love the studios we record in, are happy to spread the word of how great they are, the tech teams, the engineers - particularly our lead engineer Jake and of course Geoff and Alan who recorded the HZ libraries. The room has a beautiful acoustic. We record in such a way that you can use as much or as little of that ambience as you want, with a variety of distances.
> 
> ...



I like it to read any word in your post, Paul. o/~


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 5, 2014)

Maybe, sample modeling has had it right all along.

Anechoic is the only time learning one space means consistent working from instrument to instrument and space and other space. And you still need your ears.

And Simon... I could probably tell too.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 5, 2014)

Sample Modeling has it it right.
EW has it it right.
Spitfire has it it right.
CineSamples has it it right.
8Dio has it it right.
Project Sam has it it right.
VSL has it it right.
Kirk Hunter has it it right..
They ALL have it it right.

They all just are going for something different. And in the end, you like what you like.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 5, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> Sample Modeling has it it right.
> EW has it it right.
> Spitfire has it it right.
> CineSamples has it it right.
> ...



Or wrong


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 5, 2014)

Well, if they are ALL wrong, they sure are in good company


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 5, 2014)

Hi Troels,

Thanks for chiming in here. 

on a side note, the website www dot troelsfolmann dot com in your signature links to a parked domain with no content.

On the topic, well, I have been around the block a few times myself you know, you wrote a few points of common sense, but at the same time you avoided a direct answer concerning the 240 players and the Hall. 

I respect this, and I leave it with that.

Thanks
G


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 5, 2014)

for the record, I'm not saying there isn't magic in having everything recorded in the same place. Learned that LONG ago that it works really well when done really right.

I just think that when it's not done, that way, it's less important to know the details, because you're focusing less and less on expression and actual sound, and tricking your brain into not focusing on listening


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 5, 2014)

Synesthesia @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> Just in relation to the suggestion of "hype"...


Paul,

In my own words, you make your product transparent, and yes, I know what I buy into, from engineers, to hall, and last but most certainly not least, the musicians :!: 



> Music, in performance, is a type of scuplture. The air in the perfomance is sculpted into something. _- Frank Zappa - _


----------



## Udo (Jan 5, 2014)

Get Zynaptiq Unveil, remove almost* all the reverb/ambient sound and place the foreground components in any "space" you can create  (* I said: "remove almost all reverb", because when you go too far it starts to sound unnatural).

BTW, you could probably also use Unveil to help identify the environment something is recorded in, by analysing the isolated reverb/ambient signal.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 6, 2014)

Udo @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> BTW, you could probably also use Unveil to help identify the environment something is recorded in, by analysing the isolated reverb/ambient signal.



Well, Unveil can be very useful, but a forensic audio tool it is not. 

Having said that, in deed, today there are rocksolid (accepted as court evidence!) tools available that can proof whether a sound was produced on the Newman stage or not, or whether there was a real decca tree or just an EQ'd IR, just for example, but all that is an entirely different story.


----------



## Udo (Jan 6, 2014)

I suggested Unveil could HELP identifying the environment, i.e. it provides the isolated reverb signal created by the environment, which could then be analysed.

BTW, that signal can also be used for stereo to quad up-mixing.


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 6, 2014)

Unveil is blind deconvolution (probably,...mostly)

you're probably asking for more trouble using it as an analysis tool for space.


----------



## Udo (Jan 6, 2014)

Udo @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> I suggested Unveil could HELP identifying the environment, i.e. it provides the isolated reverb signal created by the environment, which could then be analysed.


I implied "analysed by some other software". Unveil just HELPS by providing the isolated reverb signal (which I thought would be useful).


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 6, 2014)

While we're at it, and Peter mentioned SPAT earlier, for those interested in the scientific side of this, here is an interesting paper by IRCAM, founded by Pierre Boulez originally.

Paper
http://tinyurl.com/lj2c6rt

IRCAM
http://www.ircam.fr/ircam.html?&L=1

Best
G


----------



## Udo (Jan 6, 2014)

KingIdiot @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> Unveil is blind deconvolution (probably,...mostly).


According to CEO Denis Goekdag Unveil doesn't do any (de-)convolution, and it doesn't use any FFT (but I believe their other product, UNFILTER uses deconvolution).


----------



## KingIdiot (Jan 6, 2014)

Udo @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> KingIdiot @ Mon Jan 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Unveil is blind deconvolution (probably,...mostly).
> ...



I built some dereverberizing setups in spectral editing with some spectral gating and playing with phase relationships, and then building harmonic filter maps. Took insane amounts of time and processing. Always thought the guys at synaptic were magicians... still cant see it be anything but an "effect" not something that is actually correct. Not when I played with the dem. I'll take another look I think its fantastic... but there are probably better and more accurat ways within sample libs


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 6, 2014)

Some nice info here. Just a couple of thoughts.

I'm not sure our current developers have yet found the best spaces for sample recording.

Lots of developers have decided to record in Sound-stages (EW, Cinesamples, OT, and others). These rooms all sound good, some sound even better than good, but none sound great (imo). That might seem like an obvious choice to go to a sound-stage, but I don't think these rooms were designed and built to impart much magic (great sounding natural reverb) to the sound. They were designed to sound rather neutral (dry). That's one reason why mixers always add reverb tails to those recordings.

I'm a big fan of the mojo found in the SF libraries. Interesting that it comes from a converted church, chopped in two, with some weird angles, a retrackable-absorbing ceiling, probably some marble, etc...... a mistake in other words, a place not originally designed with sound in mind at all.

Second in sound (to my ears) would be the Adagio series, recorded in a great sounding (again) church.

I'm thinking that a mid-large performance hall might be a great place for recording samples. Someplace that imparts rich natural reverb, but maybe a bit shorter than the Air Studios reverb time. 

Sound-stages don't have much breathing room around the samples. They are the "stage" without the "hall".

Did current developers even test many halls? Do they have the ears to know? Impossible to say.... But I do think that other better sounding spaces can be discovered.


----------



## Jordan Gagne (Jan 6, 2014)

Folmann @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> So no one here ever used Symphobia - cause they didn't disclose the hall and it didn't match any other library? How about EW - took years before public learned what hall they used? How sad for VSL owners they cannot possibly mix their dry samples with any other library. How can you even make music by using drums recorded in one location - a bass recorded in another - mixed with piano recorded in yet another and then strings recorded in an ambient environment?
> 
> ...



I agree with pretty much everything you just said, although to play devil's advocate you could argue that, by advertising a library as being recorded in "one of the greatest symphony halls in the world", you're kind of creating hall hype yourself. 8)


----------



## tmm (Jan 6, 2014)

jamwerks @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> ... a mistake in other words, a place not originally designed with sound in mind at all.



I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most older churches were built with very conscious consideration to the sound (though probably more for choirs and orators than orchestral instruments).


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 6, 2014)

tmm @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most older churches were built with very conscious consideration to the sound (though probably more for choirs and orators than orchestral instruments).



You aren't wrong. Most large churches (especially ones built before microphones) were built with the intention of the entire congregation being able to hear the priest/preacher from the pulpit.

Cheers.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 6, 2014)

Andy B @ Sun Jan 05 said:


> I know mine is a biased opinion as I work for Spitfire, but I can honestly say that I don't think I'd be able to get as good results with mixing libraries.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andy.



Andy I doubt if you could either. Technically.

But I wonder if the lay listener that heard those pieces would know, care or even understand that. But certainly I agree that using one space with a well recorded orchestra, such as Spitfire makes things balance much easier.


----------



## victorv (Jan 6, 2014)

Daammn, I'm still curious... Now I want to know the name of "one of the greatest symphony halls in the world" :3


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jan 6, 2014)

victorv @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> Daammn, I'm still curious... Now I want to know the name of "one of the greatest symphony halls in the world" :3



Three are listed here courtesy Justin Matthews:
http://scoringfilm.net/2010/12/14/the-best-concert-halls/ (http://scoringfilm.net/2010/12/14/the-b ... ert-halls/)


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 7, 2014)

In deed, but I could not really come up with a top three list, there are too many great halls internationally that deserve to share the top three. 

Look at that beauty, Parco della Musica!

http://www.auditorium.com/virtualtour_2011/it#/sale/cavea

On a side note, 1910, I always wondered how Mahler must had felt on the night before his eights symphony was performed for the very first time. Did he sleep at all? 

Besides the amount of people performing, there were quite a few illustrous personalities in the audience, Georges Clémenceau, Stefan Zweig, Thomas Mann, Siegfried Wagner, Leopold Stokowsky, Arnold Schönberg, Anton Webern and Richard Strauss.

I guess he felt a little nervous. :wink:


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 7, 2014)

Jordan Gagne @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> ...to play devil's advocate you could argue that, by advertising a library as being recorded in "one of the greatest symphony halls in the world", you're kind of creating hall hype yourself. 8)



Bingo... no wait, that's a different Hall. :wink: 

I was tempted to say the very same Jordan. My first reflex reaction was to question what Hall that might be, while my second instincticve thought was who exactly performed in the total of 240 players, the latter certainly being advertised as well in a way I would desribe as hype.



> Largest Epic Orchestra Ever Sampled (240 players)



All that is quite a mouth full, but hey, the antonym for hype is secrecy. Go figure!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 7, 2014)

G.R. Baumann @ 7/1/2014 said:


> Besides the amount of people performing, there were quite a few illustrous personalities in the audience, Georges Clémenceau, Stefan Zweig, Thomas Mann, Siegfried Wagner, Leopold Stokowsky, Arnold Schönberg, Anton Webern and Richard Strauss.
> 
> I guess he felt a little nervous. :wink:



I think, were I in his position, I would just faint. >8o


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 7, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Jan 07 said:


> G.R. Baumann @ 7/1/2014 said:
> 
> 
> > Besides the amount of people performing, there were quite a few illustrous personalities in the audience, Georges Clémenceau, Stefan Zweig, Thomas Mann, Siegfried Wagner, Leopold Stokowsky, Arnold Schönberg, Anton Webern and Richard Strauss.
> ...



:D Guess he was tired of fainting, he dedicated the 8th to his wife Alma, who he knew had entered, and this caused him great pains, a relationship with Walter Gropius.

Apart from that when Mahler had completed the 8th in 1906 enormous tragedy struck. His both daughters contracted scarlet fever, the elder one died, and Alma’s mother suffered a heart attack.



> The doctor who examined her also found that the strain had affected Alma’s heart. The composer, an athletic swimmer and ardent mountain climber, joked, “You might as well examine me, too.” Having done so, the doctor told him, “I would not be proud of a heart like that.” And thus he found himself suddenly under medical sentence of death, under which he lived for nearly four years.



Quote courtesy of Steven Ledbetter, former program annotator of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the latter usually performing in "one of the greatest symphony halls in the world" in deed, mhhh ok, I shut up now. :lol: 

http://bso.http.internapcdn.net/bso/images/program_notes/mahler_das_lied.pdf

http://sarahcoledesign.com/NSO_site_CONTRIBUTE/Steven_Ledbetter.html


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 7, 2014)

jamwerks @ Mon Jan 06 said:


> But I do think that other better sounding spaces can be discovered.



Yes, and they are looking for it of course.

Accoustician Jürgen Reinhold: http://mariinsky.tv/n/619-en

http://www.muellerbbm.com/mueller-bbm/news/article/the-mariinsky-acoustics/

or here:

http://www.peutz.de/pdf/daga2009_04.pdf


----------



## eric aron (Jan 7, 2014)

interesting topic, i would say no really importance to know the recording hall name. this is useless for many reasons, as Troels, Piet and Paul explained. the musical result only prevails. i don't like these new trends-hypes around so said famous halls. they are distracting from the essence of the music, which is first right interpretation, then good recording.
the hall question is biased, because in reality you have a lot of factors like audience absorption, orchestra mass, musical repertoire, all this changing the perception of sound and the space acoustics. listening a beautiful performance in a hall doesn't guaranty that you can get the same sound if you record a solo or section instrument in it, outside the normal hall context. the energy of the players is not the same in a recording condition than a concert-tutti performance. they have to mimic tiny fractions of performance outside any musical context. this has then to be recombined into a virtual orchestration. lot of artificial steps in the chain. and difficult task for the developer to anticipate the right articulations, i know.

as for me i don't hear nice musical results in combining several libraries, thus several instruments colors and spaces together. this doesn't serve the music. it sounds more like a patchwork with dissociated elements, cancelling the subtle musical relationship instruments have when playing together, thus the coherence and credibility of the music. maybe this can be good enough for background film music, as a movie is itself a big complex patchwork, and as film music has to serve the movie, not Music in first plan. but it can't be satisfying in first plan music. whats more in film music, thinking in all the post production add ons, digital reverbs, treatments, synths layerings, fx.. 

concerning orchestra, i prefer one united space with all the articulations recorded within. Spitfire has demonstrated the validity of it. progresses are made every year towards more perfection. just a question of time. I prefer to wait one more year than buy a bunch of libraries to collect here an there some "best " articulations.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 7, 2014)

It must be a very special hall, as I more than often said.... .


----------

