# Nailing "that" string sound!



## hbuus (Mar 14, 2010)

I'm trying to make my strings sound the way you guys make your strings sound.

Please take a listen to these 1st violins:
http://www.box.net/shared/rt3x1r2lvb

(It's the same sequence playing twice - first without reverb, then with a little reverb added)

Does this sound ok CC-wise?

I've set up my Korg Nanokontrol like this:
Fader 1 controls CC #1, which is instrument XF (values 0-100)
Fader 2 controls CC #8, which is instrument volume (values 0-127)

Then I do this:

First I play in the keyboard part.
Then while playing back the keyboard part in Cubase, I record CC movement with both hands on the two faders on the Nanokontrol.
Lastly I go into the piano roll editor in Cubase and edit the length of each note to make the ending of each note sound good when heard with the CC changes I recorded in the previous step.

This is getting close(r) to the way strings "should" sound, isn't it? I hope so!

Best,
Henrik 

PS. What happened to the first post I did a few hours ago about this?


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 15, 2010)

Henrik,

you are making progress, and since you are so serious about this, I try to give some hopefully helpful comment from my point of view.

It may sound contradictory but I feel you should not make it your first priority to make it sound 'real'. The reason is that there is a danger of imitating some of the worser habits of string players, like doing too much of a swell on each and every note, and magnifying that feature while leaving out other essential components. If done in extreme this would lead to a manneristic copy of artifacts, while what you really want is singing music.

Then ... I don't believe there is such a thing like "that" string sound. Every string player sounds different, every orchestra sounds different. But what they have in common is this: variety in tone, timbre, attack, note end, simply every aspect of the sound.

So this would be my suggestion: Stop trying to make it sound 'real', try to make it sound good, and by that I mean: lively, various, healthy, spirited, colorful, musical. 

Think like your samples were a synthesizer. What would you do with a synth note to make it more musically interesting, how would you mangle it?

The first thing I ask myself when approaching a musical line is: What is it supposed to _say_? Where is the line coming from, where is it going to? Where is tension, where is relaxation, where is the arc, where is the development? By the time I pick up the instrument I should be able to tell about each note whether it is louder or softer than it's predecessor. Phrasing is key. 

Think of your notes as of little animals in your own musical zoo. Every note has an individual head (attack), waist (development) and tail (end of the note). They differ very slightly, but they always differ, there are no two identical notes. And these little differences are not random, they always have a musical reason.

If you find ways to do this then your sounds will automatically sound more 'real', not because they are a copy of something else but because there is more music in it.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 15, 2010)

This is what I do and it is very simple. The first draft of my line always sounds like crap, I then ask myself: Does this sound expressive to me? The answer is 99% of the time: NO, so I try to hear it in my head, how it could sound more expressive, from that I try to find solutions to match that sound, this is were virtual music becomes an 'art', this last step nobody proceeds the same way, it takes time, a good ear and imagination to start getting good results. You may have to do a lot of trial and error, then you find one thing that works, just save it and use it again the next time. Keep doing this, after a while you will be surprised at the results. It's very hard to pin point one thing to do right because we are each so different, different ear, style, approach, taste, etc. What works great for one may not work for you. The important thing is to stick to it and you'll be rewarded before you know it.


----------



## mjc (Mar 15, 2010)

Oooooh those are really cool tips to remember! (even though it's not my topic  ), so +1 on Hannes' and Guy's replies

I too get caught up in trying to make my sequences sound 'real'...it often detracts from my making the actual musicality of the piece good! My best mock-ups have usually been the ones where I didn't think about the sound as much (well of course I thought about it, but you get my point :wink: ) but have concentrated on the dynamic and orchestration. For me, it's when I think _too_ hard that it goes AWOL instead letting the music and sequencing flow.

Sorry Henrik! I didn't really focus on the OP, and what I just mentioned you probably are already quite aware of!  

Sometimes posting my own thoughts helps me cement it in my own mind :D


----------



## bryla (Mar 15, 2010)

Very interesting points.

I just stumbled over this:

I'm trying to make my strings sound the way you guys make your strings sound. 

Even though the purpose is not for me as Hannes say to make it sound real, there is something lacking in holding up mock-ups as an ideal for sound. I would encourage you to hold the sound of a string orchestra as an ideal for making string mock-ups.


----------



## d-dmusic (Mar 15, 2010)

> So this would be my suggestion: Stop trying to make it sound 'real', try to make it sound good, and by that I mean: lively, various, healthy, spirited, colorful, musical.


That is good stuff Hannes.



> Think like your samples were a synthesizer. What would you do with a synth note to make it more musically interesting, how would you mangle it?
> 
> The first thing I ask myself when approaching a musical line is: What is it supposed to say? Where is the line coming from, where is it going to? Where is tension, where is relaxation, where is the arc, where is the development? By the time I pick up the instrument I should be able to tell about each note whether it is louder or softer than it's predecessor. Phrasing is key


Really Good ! :D 

I'll tell you something that may seem contradictory. As the latest humongous sample libraries have become more and more demanding, requiring loading and manipulation of umpteen articulations, etc., I have found my result has become less and less satisfying. 

Why ? I think it is because I am "performing" these lines with emotion less and less, and, end up loading and re-loading then "programming" them more and more.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 15, 2010)

I'm surprised that these things are such a revelation. This is exactly what any musician learns when taking lessons to play a musical instrument. Dah!  There is an investment of time and willingness involved, unfortunately too many people have decided to take the lazy way and expect to sound like the London Symphony Orchestra or John Williams as soon as they purchased their samples. No secrets, just work hard and you'll get your just reward, *and it ain't gonna happen overnight*, even with the best theories, philosophies, advices etc in the world, it will take a lot of practice. I'm just a bit tired of people looking instant solutions.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 15, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Mar 15 said:


> I'm surprised that these things are such a revelation. This is exactly what any musician learns when taking lessons to play a musical instrument. Dah!  There is an investment of time and willingness involved, unfortunately too many people have decided to take the lazy way and expect to sound like the London Symphony Orchestra or John Williams as soon as they purchased their samples. No secrets, just work hard and you'll get your just reward, *and it ain't gonna happen overnight*, even with the best theories, philosophies, advices etc in the world, it will take a lot of practice. I'm just a bit tired of people looking instant solutions.



o/~ o-[][]-o


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 15, 2010)

Guy, its not as obvious as you'd think. The concept of "instant gratification" has really gravitated toward synths and samplers though as opposed to say electric guitars where "wood shedding" is a given. Heck with a keyboard, you just press a key right? Just git yerself some VSL and play the Star Wars theme. No?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 15, 2010)

I don't recall saying anything about being simple. But if you don't enlighten people about this, they will keep their illusions. Just trying to be realistic.

This is why I've nearly given up on giving advice to people, because the advice I give them is not what they want to hear. What many people want is you to tell them: "Use this reverb and plug in". But are you really helping them?


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 15, 2010)

Guy, the advice you've shared is more appreciated than you know (at least by me). I just know from my experience that there are many people who think its simple and don't want to do the work to make these instruments/tools expressive. I think it most often starts out that they just don't know what is needed but then often when you tell them as you say, they don't want to do all the work. Everyone wants a "Symphobia" solution (which is great for some things).

For myself, I've also found it helpful to watch videos of really good players demonstrate how they play such as these.

btw, I never did thank you for getting all of your videos posted on the VSL site. Much appreciated.


----------



## StrangeCat (Mar 15, 2010)

http://www.audiobro.com/

use this Sample Lib,

Use TODD AO in Altiverb 6,

Keep on truck'n :lol: 


(o)


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 15, 2010)

I rest my case. :roll:

and I'm out!


----------



## d-dmusic (Mar 15, 2010)

What I'm saying is that it's the emotional connection that can be lost in the complexity of programming some of these huge VSTi's. Yes, we all do it, but, at least in my case, sometimes the emotional result can be less than what I had hoped for.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 15, 2010)

Did you ever hear the emotion that http://home.comcast.net/~synergy543/Firebird.mp3 (Isao Tomita) elicted from static synth oscillators? It was a LOT of work too! Full surround orchestral realizations from a monophonic instrument in 1979.

All instruments are just tools whether they are made of wood or silicon. What you get out of them depends upon how you use them.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 15, 2010)

I for one are happy about these topics to be discussed and questions to be asked. Shaping, phrasing, accentuation, dramaturgy ... these are the topics that will keep us busy as long as we live.



synergy543 @ Mon Mar 15 said:


> Did you ever hear the emotion that http://home.comcast.net/~synergy543/Firebird.mp3 (Isao Tomita) elicted from static synth oscillators? It was a LOT of work too! Full surround orchestral realizations from a monophonic instrument in 1979.
> 
> All instruments are just tools whether they are made of wood or silicon. What you get out of them depends upon how you use them.



Absolutely. I have said before that I see not _fundamental _reason why an instrument made from wood, cat gut and horse hair should be _per se_ more expressive than a virtual made from electrons (this is, speaking _theoretically_). However the data throughput is hugely different of course.


----------



## d-dmusic (Mar 15, 2010)

> Actually I wish they could invent an electric violin that a good violinist could use to record real violin performances accurately - where for instance on long sustained notes, bow pressure could be recorded as expression data. Those midi files would be priceless.





synergy543 @ Mon Mar 15 said:


> Although you'd need a million of them. And then selecting among them would not be a real time process (unless automated - which might inhibit individual expression). And isn't creating those expression files part of the creative process? How strong an attack, when does vibrato onset, how much, etc. The permutations are infinite.
> 
> Physical modeling seems to me to be a more promising approach in the long run. Creating a virtual instrument, not a virtual player.



I emailed a couple of developers a while back trying to get them interested in the idea of combining _physical modeling with samples._ 
My idea was to use the physical modeling "in between" the samples exactly where samples come up short. 

Just as an example, let's take something relatively "simple" - a 9' concert grand. :shock: Well, at least it is not as complex as a violin.
VSL, with the Bosendorfer Imperial, has gone and sampled a gazzilion velocity layers in an effort to get as close as possible.
But, in between velocity layers, why not try and implement physical modeling to bridge the gap between velocity layers ? 

The same idea cold be used to mitigate the timbre/tone gap between velocity layers in a string library. Maybe even as Frederik suggest, going many steps further and using physical modeling for bow pressure, crescendo's, diminuendo's, attack, realistic gliss, etc... :idea:  Or, how about a crazy idea....using physical modeling to create your own unique orchestral timbre ? 

The *"SYNFUL" *orchestra is a pretty good start at a stand alone modeled approach, why not combine the two approaches ?


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 15, 2010)

> Actually I wish they could invent an electric violin that a good violinist could use to record real violin performances accurately - where for instance on long sustained notes, bow pressure could be recorded as expression data. Those midi files would be priceless.



Hmm ...

actually I think there already exists a lot.

There are good instrument samples without vibrato like VSL or XSample. Run that through the SIPS vibrato script plus an automateable gain plus some automated EQs and control all the properties (volume, vibrato amplitude, vibrato speed, EQs for timbre) in realtime, then it would react pretty similar to a real instrument. I think I have done a similar thing before with an oboe but when I posted it in this forum there was zero reaction, nada:

http://www.strings-on-demand.com/demos/HF_Oboe.mp3


----------



## Rob (Mar 16, 2010)

Hannes_F @ 15th March 2010 said:


> ...
> 
> There are good instrument samples without vibrato like VSL or XSample. Run that through the SIPS vibrato script plus an automateable gain plus some automated EQs and control all the properties (volume, vibrato amplitude, vibrato speed, EQs for timbre) in realtime, then it would react pretty similar to a real instrument. I think I have done a similar thing before with an oboe but when I posted it in this forum there was zero reaction, nada:
> 
> http://www.strings-on-demand.com/demos/HF_Oboe.mp3



very nice, Hannes... although when I've tried doing this on a non vib violin the sound was quite unpleasing, as non vibrato violin has a harsh harmonic content and I wasn't able to make it sound good. Your oboe on the contrary is nice.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 16, 2010)

Rather than tell you what everyone else did, I'll go ahead and say to observe how strings play. Go see a string ensemble if you can. Watch then, watch them in a collective and individual sense. And most of all, pay attention to how vibrato is played per note. That imo, is what a lot of people miss with string libs.

Also on legato passages (not slurred) you might want to see how the expression is per note as well. I saw a comment that strings don't swell on every note. Well...actually sometimes they do. Depends on the writing and the ensemble itself. If they slur then it's not as swelled as they are continuing several notes on the same bow motion.

It also wouldn't hurt to talk to a few string players.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 16, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Also on legato passages (not slurred)



Nathan, maybe I have a language problem here. What would be the definition of legato in contrast to slurred?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 16, 2010)

Well, I'm not a string player so it MAY be a different term, but when it comes to woodwinds, legato would be connected notes with very light tonguing, especially when playing jazz. Jazz players play "be bop" by tonguing every single note. Often times they "ghost" tongue, which means a barely audible tonguing.

Slurring would be playing continuous notes without tonguing at all. Resulting in a slightly different sound. Woodwinds doing fast runs would slur.

So in short we're looking at:

Staccato = tonguing with space between the notes
Legato = tonguing but still connecting the notes to where they are fluent
Slurred = no tonguing at all with connected notes.

To me, for strings, I would assume tonging = bowing. So slurred notes on strings would be one continuous string of notes with one bowing. While legato would be a bow change on every note. I think FFF would require that regardless do to the speed of the bowing.'

Look up some string players and see. I'll see if I can find an example.

Make sense?


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 16, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Look up some string players and see. I'll see if I can find an example.
> 
> Make sense?



Do you know any Hannes?


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 16, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Well, I'm not a string player so it MAY be a different term, but when it comes to woodwinds, legato would be connected notes with very light tonguing, especially when playing jazz. Jazz players play "be bop" by tonguing every single note. Often times they "ghost" tongue, which means a barely audible tonguing.
> 
> Slurring would be playing continuous notes without tonguing at all. Resulting in a slightly different sound. Woodwinds doing fast runs would slur.
> 
> ...



OK, I see where you are coming from. For strings it is actually a little different.

*Legato* (ligare= to tie) is for strings what you call slurred. Several notes on one bow, no bow stopping in between. The notation would be slurs.

*Portato* (portare= to carry) is for strings what you call Legato (I guess): Several notes on one bow, but little bow stops in between. Still the notes are relatively long, not like staccato. The notation would be slurs with added little dashes on each note.

*Détaché* (détacher= to separate) looks different than Portato but sounds very similar. The bow direction is reversed for each note but the notes are long, so they sound dense and only mildly attacked. Notation would be: no slur signs, but little dashes on each note. Alternatively: nothing (!) since it is the default on strings. A different incarnation of it is_ tenuto_.

*Staccato/Spiccato*: Space between notes, notation is little dots on the notes. Can combined with playing all them on one bow and this gives variations like sautillé etc.

After all then it makes sense if you say that strings do individual swells on legato phrases because you mean what we call portato or détaché which means more individual notes. When strings think legato they try to connect the notes as dense as possible and then it makes more sense to give several notes an envelope of vibrato that ties them together as a group. But actually this is a very rough description from my side, what really happens is _much _more complicated. :|


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 16, 2010)

rayinstirling @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Nathan Allen Pinard @ Tue Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Look up some string players and see. I'll see if I can find an example.
> ...



Hmm that is a tough call, lemme think. :?: :roll:


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 16, 2010)

I think there is a rather widespread misconception among non-string players, that legato can be something else than slurred notes, for example detache. BTW, what's that in your hand Hannes?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 16, 2010)

Hans Adamson @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> I think there is a rather widespread misconception among non-string players, that legato can be something else than slurred notes, for example detache. BTW, what's that in your hand Hannes?



That still doesn't make sense to me at all. A slur is a different playing technique than legato. Or at least it's supposed to be.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 16, 2010)

Hans Adamson @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> I think there is a rather widespread misconception among non-string players, that legato can be something else than slurred notes, for example detache.



Yes ... what actually might be confusing is the fact that good string players _can _make the detaché sound very similar to legato (which means they play the notes very dense and cheat away the attack coming from the bow change). This is often used when playing in a section, so it may sound like a legato, is notated like a legato but still you see a bow change (that you hopefully do not hear). I admit this does not make it easier to distinguish the both.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 16, 2010)

> That still doesn't make sense to me at all. A slur is a different playing technique than legato. Or at least it's supposed to be.



Nathan, I am the last that would not be willing to learn. Do you have any references?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 16, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Tue Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a rather widespread misconception among non-string players, that legato can be something else than slurred notes, for example detache.
> ...



Hm, interesting considering VSL's Detache samples seem a bit well....detached.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 16, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Hm, interesting considering VSL's Detache samples seem a bit well....detached.



Well ... they _should _be detached, so everything is OK with them I guess.

I was explaining why you might see a bow change now and then when watching an orchestra that you don't find in the notes.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 16, 2010)

> Nathan, I am the last that would not be willing to learn. Do you have any references?



I'm pretty sure your right, but I went ahead and PMd some friends. Just seemed odd to me that legato would be slurred.


----------



## Rob (Mar 16, 2010)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ 16th March 2010 said:


> ...
> That still doesn't make sense to me at all. A slur is a different playing technique than legato. Or at least it's supposed to be.



as a flute player, I can confirm that "legato" means slurred in wind instruments as well. Same technique...


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 16, 2010)

germancomponist @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> The Samplemodeling instruments are the best examples for the future instruments.
> 
> One has to learn how to play them, but then you more and more have a feel that you are playing a real instrument. Virtual real!



OTOH, needing to learn the virtuosic skills of every instrument is something few composers can achieve. So regarding mockups, there does seem to be a need for non-realtime sample and synth instruments as we currently have. Kind of the equivalent of Photoshop or 3D graphics to photography and acting.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 16, 2010)

The good thing is: When you have learned to play, for example, the trumpet right, then you can go on quickly with the saxes and the new coming instruments.

And, you will have much much more fun to play this instruments. Knowing that you can control anything and doing it automatically, that`s so cool!


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 16, 2010)

Fun? :? 

Well, I have a real violin, (maybe its a bad one?) but it sounds like a tortured dog when I try to play it. So I really appreciate good samples such as LASS, VSL and others.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 16, 2010)

My real violin sounds more like a cat when I try to play it, smile. Ok, not always. :-D


----------



## hbuus (Mar 18, 2010)

Thanks everybody for making such a good and informative thread.
I appreciate all the input.
Time to grab the Korg Nanokontrol and experiment some more in the coming days, based on what I have read here.

Best,
Henrik


----------

