# Best technique for dynamics ?



## G.E. (Apr 7, 2014)

I was wondering how do you go about shaping dynamics in legato phrases.Until now I was just riding CC1 but not all libraries are the same in how they react when you move CC1.Some libraries seem to require using CC11 as well because the change in volume when using CC1 is more subtle than others.
Using only 1 fader is pretty simple and straight forward but combining CC1 with CC11 is a little confusing to me.

Can you explain how you do it and why you do it that way ? It would also be helpful if you mention which library you are using.
Should I just stick with CC1 and forget about CC11 ?


----------



## Musicologo (Apr 7, 2014)

At least for me what makes sense is that dynamics are all done with velocity values and then tweaked with CC11.

In my understanding CC1 should be a "general fader" only to decide the relative levels regarding the other instruments in the mixing process.

But maybe many others use other assumptions...


----------



## G.E. (Apr 7, 2014)

Musicologo @ Mon Apr 07 said:


> At least for me what makes sense is that dynamics are all done with velocity values and then tweaked with CC11.
> 
> In my understanding CC1 should be a "general fader" only to decide the relative levels regarding the other instruments in the mixing process.
> 
> But maybe many others use other assumptions...



So do you mean set cc1 locked at "p" or "mf" for example,and then use cc11(expression) to add more "life" to the phrase ?


----------



## jsmithsebasto (Apr 7, 2014)

Hi,

If I am using Vienna Ensemble for example, I like to use CC1 and CC11. in this scenario with 1 assigned to Velocity Crossfade and CC11 assigned to Expression. This will give you great independent control over the timbre and dynamics, which I find can help to create a more musical performance of dynamics.

That of course would be my preferred method (assigning them separately) I use an expression pedal and the mod wheel on my midi controller while playing. However, perhaps a more economic solution would be to assign both values (Vel X-fade + Exp) to one CC (CC1 or CC11, it doesn't matter much really). In Vienna you do so by either right clicking on the fader and moving the desired fader or wheel on your midi control to auto-detect, or manually setting the CC value of each to the same CC. It is important to make sure you map separate curves for the two values (I typically use a basic logarithmic curve for expression and a bipolar curve for Vel X-fade).

I know mostly every library is different, but if you dig around in your own libraries, the concepts are generally the same.

I hope this helps, If you'd like further clarification on anything, don't hesitate to ask.


----------



## G.E. (Apr 7, 2014)

Let's take a real example.Let's say I want to do a mockup of this piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtSb9XqetlU

I've also attached an image of the first 8 bars (only 1st violins section)

The general velocity for this line is piano.When I write that line in my daw, should I set the cc1 dynamics at p while moving cc11 expression up and down,or should I move them both up and down ?


----------



## ModalRealist (Apr 7, 2014)

So I think the best approach is to think about the differences between what CC1 and CC11 are usually doing. In most libraries, CC1 crossfades between recorded dynamic layers, and CC11 is effectively a volume control. The answer to which to use, or in what combination, on any particular line, is only answerable in the context of that specific line. For example, a swell from "pp" to "ff" is obviously going to need some CC1 for crossfading. But what about a line like the one you posted? Here, I think judgement is important. I would start by finding the right dynamic level with CC1 for the very first note. I'd then try playing the line just with CC1. I'd listen carefully for whether I liked the change in timbre as the samples crossfaded to the higher dynamic (e.g. mf). Is that the sound I want from these swells in this line? Or do I want the same "p" timbre but just louder? Once you know the answer to that question, you can either leave CC1 at "p" (maybe with a little wiggling on the swells, but not enough to crossfade the sample) and use CC11 to get the swells, or you might prefer the sound of going up into an "mp" or "mf" layer. So to summate: be aware of what sample/recording your programs are actually playing back to you, and figure out which samples you actually want sound-wise in a particular line. Then use your CCs to have those samples played back at the volume you want them played back at.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 7, 2014)

I pretty much use cc11 for volume and cc1 for vibrato with cc7 as a trim.


----------



## Musicologo (Apr 7, 2014)

Regarding your example I'd do this: Since the entire phrase is piano, I'd assume I want the "piano" samples, therefore I'd use CC7 fixed at a certain point [edited, apparently CC7 is volume, not CC1].

Then, I'd use cc11 to make those crescendo and decrescendos. I'd draw lines following them (in this case I'd put a going up line following the first four notes).

and I'd use velocity [edit: which seems to be CC1 after all] to simulate the natural attack of the notes. for instance, in your first three notes, obviously the first one should be something like 50, the second one, something like 70 and the third one something like 60 because that's the "natural" contour of expressiveness of a phrase like that (the second note is louder because it's on the strong beat, also it's the highest pitch, etc). For the next set of three notes I'd do something alike, keep the pattern 50, 68, 60 for instance. The second note of the second phrase should not be so high as the second note of the first phrase because it has a lower pitch. Anyway, in the end I'd apply a "randomizer" of +-5% to everything (tempo, velocity, position, even to tuning, etc) to increase a bit of variety.


----------



## pkm (Apr 7, 2014)

I disagree with musicologo in a very fundamental way. Let's put it into real world terms. Cc1 is the player blowing harder into their flute, cc11 is the engineer's fader, and cc7 is a trim knob on the console. You're the conductor. How do you direct the people in the room to get that performance? Ask the engineer to ride the levels on the board while following the score? Probably not. I'd ask the player to start at piano and swell to a louder dynamic by simply playing louder. That's what cc1 replicates on most libraries.

Also it's a bit confusing with terms here because many libraries use cc's differently, so in my case I mean cc1=velocity crossfade/dynamics, cc7=volume, and cc11=expression (only volume changes)

So I ride cc1 to "be" the player. If the tail doesn't go soft enough or I need a little boost at the top of the swell, I'll use cc11, and I use volume for non-automated relative levels.


----------



## ModalRealist (Apr 7, 2014)

pkm @ Mon Apr 07 said:


> I disagree with musicologo in a very fundamental way. Let's put it into real world terms. Cc1 is the player blowing harder into their flute, cc11 is the engineer's fader, and cc7 is a trim knob on the console. You're the conductor. How do you direct the people in the room to get that performance? Ask the engineer to ride the levels on the board while following the score? Probably not. I'd ask the player to start at piano and swell to a louder dynamic by simply playing louder. That's what cc1 replicates on most libraries.



The problem with this approach is that it assumes that volume and timbre shifts done by an instrumentalist are linear - I.e. that for any given volume the player alone produces, there is one timbre possible. This is just not the case!

That is why I recommend thinking in terms if what samples have actually been recorded. Find the "range" of CC1 (X-fade) that has the timbre alterations you want. Record the passage within those limits. Use CC11 to enhance the volumes (up or down) of the timbres you've chosen.


----------



## pkm (Apr 7, 2014)

Sure, I think we're coming from the same approach but talking about it differently. In the case of these swells, I would not set and forget cc1 and just ride cc11. I would ride cc1, keeping in mind where the timbre changes in the samples and where I want it to change, then use cc11 to help shape the volume if needed.

I don't ride cc's by numbers (meaning I don't think of 0-15 being ppp, 16-31 being pp, 32-47 being p, etc.). It's much more general than that. pp is simply "low" cc1 values and I use my ears to keep the timbre where I want it, then use cc11 if I need more volume variation.


----------



## Musicologo (Apr 7, 2014)

We're all talking the same thing, but I was using different numbers. I was calling "velocities" to no CC, I was calling CC1 VOLUME and volume is CC7. I'll edit my original post to match the same CCs.


----------



## pkm (Apr 7, 2014)

Musicologo @ Mon Apr 07 said:


> We're all talking the same thing, but I was using different numbers. I was calling "velocities" to no CC, I was calling CC1 VOLUME and volume is CC7. I'll edit my original post to match the same CCs.



Well then I _agree_ with you in a very fundamental way! (for the most part)


----------



## JohnG (Apr 7, 2014)

I ride cc11 and cc1 constantly.


----------



## jleckie (Apr 7, 2014)

Well...then. That says a lot about you.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 7, 2014)

yes; it's awkward at holidays


----------



## stillcd (Apr 8, 2014)

pkm @ Mon Apr 07 said:


> So I ride cc1 to "be" the player. If the tail doesn't go soft enough or I need a little boost at the top of the swell, I'll use cc11, and I use volume for non-automated relative levels.



This is the exact approach I'd recommend. Here's a bit more detail of what I recommend doing:

1. Use CC7/Volume to just get the relative volume right. You can do this by playing that instrument with the rest of the cue that you're working (or template I suppose). Play around with the CC7 value so that the volume is in the ballpark. You can also use other recordings that you know and trust as a reference to help out here.

2. Then use CC1/Mod Wheel to control the performance of the player. I find that this is what controls probably 90% of my midi programming for most libraries (especially libraries like Cinematic Strings 2). For most libraries, this will control both the timbre of the instrument as well as the volume/dynamic that the musician is playing. (Example: mod wheel at 0 for a French horn patch in Hollywood Brass results in mellow sounding timbre and soft playable dynamic. With the Mod wheel at 127, however, the result will be a loud performance with a "raspy/brassy" tone. 

3. From there, I'll use CC11 in places to add an extra little bit of dynamic contrast to the performance. Ussually, just to bring down the tail of a note so that there's a clean taper at the end of a note.

This may not pertain 100% to every library, but I find that this generally is the process I use for most modern orchestral libaries. 

Cody


----------

