# Spitfire Audio libraries and volume



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 11, 2021)

I recently purchased the Originals Drumline and, just today, Eric Whitacre Choir

It perplexes me how low of a volume these were seemingly recorded at

I have to normally put the volume within the Spitfire app up to 400% to get a usable volume level

Here is an example of a Logic Software Piano (I removed any plugins that would increase the gain) alongside the EWC Sopranos All In patch (set at 100% volume within the Spitfire App)

Am I missing something or do these libraries require the use of a gain plugin to bring them up to usable levels?
(I really hope I am just missing something)


----------



## Thundercat (Mar 11, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> I recently purchased the Originals Drumline and, just today, Eric Whitacre Choir
> 
> It perplexes me how low of a volume these were seemingly recorded at
> 
> ...



I’ve had same problem with some of their other libraries like Hans Zimmer Strings. I too thought I must be doing something wrong...be glad to know the solution.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 11, 2021)

Thundercat said:


> I’ve had same problem with some of their other libraries like Hans Zimmer Strings. I too thought I must be doing something wrong...be glad to know the solution.


Keeping my fingers crossed that someone with knowledge above my pay grade is able to chime in here

In order to get the Logic Software Piano and EWC patch to be at the same volume on the meter, I had to raise the EWC plugin volume to 213% and then add Logic's Gain plugin on maximum at +24dB


----------



## easyrider (Mar 11, 2021)

Have you got the Dynamic control CC1 on low ?


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 11, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Have you got the Dynamic control CC1 on low ?


Nope - it is all the way up


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 11, 2021)

Spitfire responded to me on IG and I have opened a support ticket to try and figure out why these libraries, or certain patches therein, have almost no volume


----------



## CT (Mar 11, 2021)

I don't know about Drumline, but a lot of the EWC patches sound just as they would in reality: pretty quiet. By not cranking stuff up artificially, there should be a more natural balance between different techniques, and more headroom to actually begin combining parts, the sum of which can then be boosted in whatever way seems appropriate.


----------



## merty (Mar 11, 2021)

I thought they had analog emu. plug-ins etc. in mind for mixing as these perform better with low input loads. So its better to decrease others rather than increasing the spitfire lib. .


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 11, 2021)

Well, for example, the lowest note in EWC Sopranos All In patch comes in at -48.1dB with EWC volume set at 100% and the Dynamic control all the way up

That seems insanely low


----------



## Wally Garten (Mar 11, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> Nope - it is all the way up


What about expression/CC11? (Not sure if the Spitfire player uses both CC1 and CC11 -- just trying to troubleshoot.)

In my experience, Spitfire libs are always quiet, but not THAT quiet.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 11, 2021)

Wally Garten said:


> What about expression/CC11? (Not sure if the Spitfire player uses both CC1 and CC11 -- just trying to troubleshoot.)
> 
> In my experience, Spitfire libs are always quiet, but not THAT quiet.


Both faders were all the way up

I am thinking I will have to turn every mic in EWC on full or add a gain plugin


----------



## davidson (Mar 11, 2021)

I've 'complained' to spitfire support about their low volume levels in the past and basically you just have to deal with it. In kontakt they set the master volume slider ridiculously low, it's annoying.


----------



## LynxUK (Mar 11, 2021)

well, as far as I'm aware Spitfire do not normalize their samples, so usually, I'll be adding 4 to 7 db during gain staging depending on the articulation/library. The EWC example you posted does seem extra quiet though.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 11, 2021)

davidson said:


> I've 'complained' to spitfire support about their low volume levels in the past and basically you just have to deal with it. In kontakt they set the master volume slider ridiculously low, it's annoying.





LynxUK said:


> well, as far as I'm aware Spitfire do not normalize their samples, so usually, I'll be adding 4 to 7 db during gain staging depending on the articulation/library. The EWC example you posted does seem extra quiet though.


ok well then, I guess Logic's gain plugin will become a staple on both the Drumline and EWC libraries


----------



## LynxUK (Mar 11, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> ok well then, I guess Logic's gain plugin will become a staple on both the Drumline and EWC libraries


I would still follow up with their support, as that seems too low


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 11, 2021)

LynxUK said:


> I would still follow up with their support, as that seems too low


Yeah, I have a support ticket in with them - waiting for a response


----------



## FireGS (Mar 12, 2021)

I am noticing that, for example, Sopranos Ahh legato at the same CC values are much quieter than the Sopranos Ahh Longs. That's kind of problematic when keyswitching.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 12, 2021)

FireGS said:


> I am noticing that, for example, Sopranos Ahh legato at the same CC values are much quieter than the Sopranos Ahh Longs. That's kind of problematic when keyswitching.


Yeah might have to have different tracks for different articulations or else there will be a lot of volume automation


----------



## FireGS (Mar 12, 2021)

This is not OK.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 12, 2021)

FireGS said:


> This is not OK.


Agreed - I am waiting to hear back from Spitfire regarding this issue - hopefully they get back to me today

Have you also opened a ticket?


----------



## LynxUK (Mar 12, 2021)

I've noticed a similiar issue between longs and legato, in their Symphonic Woodwinds....cant off the top of my head remember the instrument or patch though. Still wasnt as bad as that.


----------



## FireGS (Mar 12, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> Agreed - I am waiting to hear back from Spitfire regarding this issue - hopefully they get back to me today


I've submitted a ticket about this specifically as well. FWIW, that graph showed the two articulations at the same CC values, same velocity values.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 12, 2021)

FireGS said:


> I've submitted a ticket about this specifically as well.


I am not glad that this is an issue for others - but, if it becomes more well-known, that will help it to hopefully be resolved


----------



## jtnyc (Mar 12, 2021)

I resave the Kontakt patches to 0, up from their -6. They are still on the low side, but also realize that a lot of other libraries are on the too loud side of things. I keep Omnisphere's channel volume at -10 to start, otherwise many presets will clip the channel. Lots of hybrid, modern boom bam slam stuff will add up to clipping real fast if the DAW channel is left at 0.

With that, I do agree that a lot of the Spitfire stuff is on the way too quiet side of things.


----------



## CT (Mar 12, 2021)

I can't check right now but I think that might be due to legato patches having fewer dynamic layers than the regular longs, which is the case with some other libraries, presumably for reasons of voice count and other legato programming issues.


----------



## FireGS (Mar 12, 2021)

Mike T said:


> I can't check right now but I think that might be due to legato patches having fewer dynamic layers than the regular longs, and which is the case with some other libraries, presumably for reasons of voice count and other legato programming issues.


I'm fine with less dynamic layers, but I dont think they sampled, lets call it "forte" samples for longs, but stopped at "mezzoforte" for legato. The quietest dynamics should align, and the loudest should align.


----------



## CT (Mar 12, 2021)

FireGS said:


> I'm fine with less dynamic layers, but I dont think they sampled, lets call it "forte" samples for longs, but stopped at "mezzoforte" for legato. The quietest dynamics should align, and the loudest should align.


It's hard to know what the reasoning behind these decisions might be. Maybe they thought that for legato lines, it would be more useful to have the mellower dynamics represented fully? I'd probably agree in that case. But let me hasten to add this was just speculation in the first place as to why this discrepancy exists. I'm not sure and the difference in layers between legato and sustain patches might be something I'm misremembering.

Edit a year later: yes there seems to be somewhat different dynamic programming between the two but overall the levels should be better matched, absolutely.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2021)

The Spitfire player allows you to adjust the base volume from the default to 400%, which works fine here. For Kontakt, someone else pointed out that their default is -6, so that gives 18 ticks (from -6 to +12) which works for me.

Nothing's perfect, but I use them all day long and they sound wonderful.


----------



## Loïc D (Mar 12, 2021)

I’d say volume discrepancies among articulations is a staple with Spitfire.
I have this accross the Spitfire studio collection and indeed it is very annoying when using keyswitches.
You have to work around them.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 12, 2021)

FireGS said:


> I've submitted a ticket about this specifically as well. FWIW, that graph showed the two articulations at the same CC values, same velocity values.


Have you heard anything from SA support yet?


----------



## Mike Fox (Mar 12, 2021)

Yep. They’re libs are definitely at lower volumes straight outta the box, and I’m always having to turn their shit up. It’s annoying as hell.


----------



## mopsiflopsi (Mar 12, 2021)

Loïc D said:


> I’d say volume discrepancies among articulations is a staple with Spitfire.
> I have this accross the Spitfire studio collection and indeed it is very annoying when using keyswitches.
> You have to work around them.


I was noticing that with BBCSO too. Glad to know it’s not just me.


----------



## FireGS (Mar 13, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> Have you heard anything from SA support yet?


Not yet.


----------



## DimensionsTomorrow (Mar 13, 2021)

I’m glad you posted this. I always crank it up a bit in Kontakt.


----------



## FireGS (Mar 13, 2021)

DimensionsTomorrow said:


> I’m glad you posted this. I always crank it up a bit in Kontakt.


Yeah, the problem is this isnt Kontakt. We can boost outputs in Kontakt, edit the instrument and add gain in Kontakt, a whole lot of things can be done inside Kontakt - but the EWC is their own player. We can't control volume more than CC7/11, and the master plugin output.

That still doesn't account for nearly half the volume between articulations.


----------



## Mike Fox (Mar 13, 2021)

FireGS said:


> That still doesn't account for nearly half the volume between articulations.


That’s like the equivalent of mastering an album without adjusting the volume levels for each track.


----------



## benmrx (Mar 13, 2021)

I'll agree that Spitfire libs tend to be on the quiet side. Though, like was mentioned earlier I also feel a number of libraries are on the loud side. If I had to pick a poison, I would rather libs lean on the quiet side.

Volume discrepancy within articulations...., this is also prevalent in a number of libraries (not just Spitfire). One of the many, MANY reasons I prefer a single articulation per track. 

The Spitfire Symphonic Strings 'super sul tasto' patches might be the quietest patch of all time. lol. 

My guess is that Spitfire does very little to even out volume levels in an effort to maintain real-world dynamics. Some may see this as an annoyance while others may find it makes things 'sit' easier.


----------



## studioj (Mar 13, 2021)

My 2cents: spitfire dynamics balance beautifully across their collections for a natural feel. i think more so than perhaps any other developer. Depending on the style you’re after this might be beneficial or not. 
I find myself turning them up if I’m working on something hybrid, or leaving them alone when doing something more traditional. But it’s much better overall for them to be on the quiet side than the opposite. When I mix TO the natural state of the SF instruments I end up with a better sound I think... and then mastering at the end can beef everything up as needed together. 

It is often the case that legato patches and longs do not respond the same to dynamics and for this reason I will often choose longs instead of legato if I need a wider range of dynamic. Especially with the choir, I am rarely using the legato patches.


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 13, 2021)

The BBSCO suffers from the same inconsistent volume levels both between articulations and instruments, i do understand how everything has been balanced together to create one harmonious orchestra. I found as well that the volume difference between a solo instrument and a group as well to be inconsistent, for example playing a solo oboe vs oboe (3) whilst i dont expect the group of 3 to be 3 times louder i would expect them to be more than a db louder.


----------



## Pappaus (Mar 13, 2021)

I love the flautando patches, yet they are at such a low volume as to be unusable in a single track key switch setting. I have BBCSO core and SCS. Is this true to the orchestra in general or is it a flaw in the design. Sorry about the newbie type question.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 13, 2021)

I still have not heard back from SA yet regarding my support ticket



benmrx said:


> I'll agree that Spitfire libs tend to be on the quiet side. Though, like was mentioned earlier I also feel a number of libraries are on the loud side. If I had to pick a poison, I would rather libs lean on the quiet side.
> 
> Volume discrepancy within articulations...., this is also prevalent in a number of libraries (not just Spitfire). One of the many, MANY reasons I prefer a single articulation per track.
> 
> ...





studioj said:


> My 2cents: spitfire dynamics balance beautifully across their collections for a natural feel. i think more so than perhaps any other developer. Depending on the style you’re after this might be beneficial or not.
> I find myself turning them up if I’m working on something hybrid, or leaving them alone when doing something more traditional. But it’s much better overall for them to be on the quiet side than the opposite. When I mix TO the natural state of the SF instruments I end up with a better sound I think... and then mastering at the end can beef everything up as needed together.
> 
> It is often the case that legato patches and longs do not respond the same to dynamics and for this reason I will often choose longs instead of legato if I need a wider range of dynamic. Especially with the choir, I am rarely using the legato patches.





Pappaus said:


> I love the flautando patches, yet they are at such a low volume as to be unusable in a single track key switch setting. I have BBCSO core and SCS. Is this true to the orchestra in general or is it a flaw in the design. Sorry about the newbie type question.


Yeah, trying to use Drumline and EWC in an electronic pop song so, the low volume level of those samples is becoming a difficulty


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 13, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> Yeah, trying to use Drumline and EWC in an electronic pop song so, the low volume level of those samples is becoming a difficulty


not for me. my faders default to -16dB and if I need e.g. EWC to cut though, I push the fader to zero. works fine. when you do hybrid stuff, you'll run into this a lot but the mixer's headroom is not really the issue. the issue is more or less mixing habits (differences in articulations are a different issue entirely)


----------



## Justin L. Franks (Mar 13, 2021)

Loïc D said:


> I’d say volume discrepancies among articulations is a staple with Spitfire.
> I have this accross the Spitfire studio collection and indeed it is very annoying when using keyswitches.
> You have to work around them.


I work around this by disabling the 'global' mode in the mic mixer for Spitfire player libraries, or enabling the "per articulation" option in the mic mixer for their Kontakt libraries. They both do the same thing, it is just presented differently.

With this setting, the mic mix can be different for each articulation, so when you switch articulations, it automatically loads in a new mic mix.

I find the quietist articulation, and set the mic mix for that at its highest (if using just a single mic, have that at 100%, if using multiple mics, having the 'primary' mic at 100% and the others in relation to that).

For the articulations which are louder, I set the mic mix at a lower level to match.

Then I save this as a user preset in Spitfire player libraries, or as a snapshot in Kontakt libraries.

Finally, I raise the master volume to wherever it needs to be.

Switching between articulations now will automatically set the mic mix where it needs to be in order to match the volume.


----------



## CT (Mar 13, 2021)

Pappaus said:


> I love the flautando patches, yet they are at such a low volume as to be unusable in a single track key switch setting. I have BBCSO core and SCS. Is this true to the orchestra in general or is it a flaw in the design. Sorry about the newbie type question.


Flautando is a very quiet sound.

That's not to say that there aren't inconsistencies between articulation volumes in every library. It's difficult to avoid minor ones at least. But it is always worth applying a little common orchestral sense and asking if maybe things are louder or quieter for a real reason, before flattening it all out to the same gain level.


----------



## easyrider (Mar 13, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> I still have not heard back from SA yet regarding my support ticket
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It’s the weekend...chill....


----------



## CT (Mar 13, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> I still have not heard back from SA yet regarding my support ticket
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With respect dude, do you really need support to respond to you to know that your solution is to put a gain plugin on the stuff you want louder? Maybe it's a "pain" to do so, but so is everything about working with VIs.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 13, 2021)

easyrider said:


> It’s the weekend...chill....


Well, I did email them on Thursday



Mike T said:


> With respect dude, do you really need support to respond to you to know that your solution is to put a gain plugin on the stuff you want louder? Maybe it's a "pain" to do so, but so is everything about working with VIs.


So having to use a Gain plugin at max to even get the sound to a normal level sounds "right" to you?


----------



## FireGS (Mar 13, 2021)

Mike T said:


> That's not to say that there aren't inconsistencies between articulation volumes in every library. It's difficult to avoid minor ones at least. But it is always worth applying a little common orchestral sense and asking if maybe things are louder or quieter for a real reason, before flattening it all out to the same gain level.


Yeah, that's true, for sure. I just dont understand, perhaps, how this library is supposed to be used. At least with most VI's, the Legato patches tend to contain the long samples and offer a connected recording between them. And one should theoretically be able to turn off the legato and switch back to longs at will. I'd imagine that's the whole point of keyswitching.

Now, imagine trying to play in a line with a keyboard and CC controller, and you switch back and forth from legato to long and there's literally half the volume in LUFS between one and the other.

That seems really silly to me. It seems like an oversight. I'm not talking about whispers being matched in loudness with fortissimo shouts, or with strings, flautando with ff marcato. I'm talking about Legato Ahh to Long Ahh at the same CC levels.


----------



## CT (Mar 13, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> So having to use a Gain plugin at max to even get the sound to a normal level sounds "right" to you?


Did I say that? And what's a "normal" level anyway? 



FireGS said:


> Yeah, that's true, for sure. I just dont understand, perhaps, how this library is supposed to be used.


Like every other library, I imagine: you figure out how to work around issues and move on.

I think this thread is into whiney territory that I don't identify with and am bound to want to criticize so I'll just stop responding. Hope you folks are able to sort things out and get back to music.


----------



## Thundercat (Mar 13, 2021)

Mike T said:


> Did I say that? And what's a "normal" level anyway? I think this thread is into whiney territory that I don't identify with and am bound to want to criticize so I'll just stop responding. Hope you folks are able to work out the issues and get back to music.


I think you don't realize the severity of the situation. It's bad. And annoying. And time consuming to deal with. SF should look into it. If users don't complain on public forums, and directly to the company, things don't get fixed. I'm not sure why you think it's ok to dis people who share problems they are having, but bro that isn't cool. We are not "whining" so much as pining for a solution to a legit issue.

Peace.

Mike


----------



## FireGS (Mar 13, 2021)

Mike T said:


> Did I say that? And what's a "normal" level anyway? I think this thread is into whiney territory that I don't identify with and am bound to want to criticize so I'll just stop responding. Hope you folks are able to work out the issues and get back to music.


I hope you don't leave. For what it's worth on my end, I've just tried to show (with evidence) that there's a serious (breaking?) problem with volume correlation between alike patches.


----------



## CT (Mar 13, 2021)

Thundercat said:


> I think you don't realize the severity of the situation. It's bad. And annoying. And time consuming to deal with. SF should look into it. If users don't complain on public forums, and directly to the company, things don't get fixed. I'm not sure why you think it's ok to dis people who share problems they are having, but bro that isn't cool. We are not "whining" so much as pining for a solution to a legit issue.
> 
> Peace.
> 
> Mike


You're welcome to think whatever you want about my coolness level. It would be nice to have inconsistencies ironed out, but I can't for a second agree that these are "severe" challenges, and in any case the practical solution is obvious. People use this stuff "in the trenches" all the time and hammer things into the right shape on the fly, so it strikes me as silly to see this dithering about it on here.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 13, 2021)

Mike T said:


> Did I say that? And what's a "normal" level anyway?
> 
> 
> Like every other library, I imagine: you figure out how to work around issues and move on.
> ...


Thanks for stopping by to add negative comments about the posters herein dealing with the stated issue


----------



## CT (Mar 13, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> Thanks for stopping by to add negative comments about the posters herein dealing with the stated issue


I mean, I also did point that out myself and said I'd just drop it, but you had to get in another dig to make sure I know how horribly mean I am right?


----------



## BasariStudios (Mar 13, 2021)

All of their Libraries are like that and their Player sucks.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 13, 2021)

Mike T said:


> I mean, I also did point that out myself and said I'd just drop it, but you had to get in another dig to make sure I know how horribly mean I am right?


Another dig? That implies I made a prior dig as well, which I did not...ya dig?


----------



## CT (Mar 13, 2021)

Ah, are we already to the "this disagreement has run its course so I'm going to look for minor semantic threads to pull at" phase?



ChromeCrescendo said:


> So having to use a Gain plugin at max to even get the sound to a normal level sounds "right" to you?


If you must have it that way, there's a certain accusatory incredulity in here that feels diggish to me!

But one more attempt at sanity: it is a pet peeve of mine when I see people on here making mountains out of molehills in any respect, and this, whether you think it is a fair assessment or not, fell into that category for me. We are talking about low gain. You can turn things up. Eric Whitacre Choir needing a gain boost to suit an electronic pop song, is this a major shocker? Legatos and longs being gain mismatched... annoying, but it "breaks" the library? Seriously? I just don't get it. 

I've said my piece, and people can either turn things up and carry on with the projects, or get hung up on it and wait for support to possibly tell them the same thing because their libraries' low levels aren't a "problem" that they're interested in "fixing." I regret it if anyone finds the way in which I talk about these things crass, but that's how it is. Don't take it personally, who the fuck am I?


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 13, 2021)

Mike T said:


> Ah, are we already to the "this disagreement has run its course so I'm going to look for minor semantic threads to pull at" phase?
> 
> 
> If you must have it that way, there's a certain accusatory incredulity in here that feels diggish to me!


I can see how that could come across that way and my intent was not to take a swipe at you but merely a way to express my incredulity at the situation itself - for which I used your comment as a springboard - I will do something here that is not usually found on the internet, I will apologize if you took offense -- still VIC "friends"?


----------



## CT (Mar 13, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> I can see how that could come across that way and my intent was not to take a swipe at you but merely a way to express my incredulity at the situation itself - for which I used your comment as a springboard - I will do something here that is not usually found on the internet, I will apologize if you took offense -- still VIC "friends"?


I didn't actually take offense, just playing along with the semantic nitpickery, so no need to apologize (please see above for my own attempt at catharsis). It's all a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, though I'm sure I've alienated others by being so terribly nasty.


----------



## Thundercat (Mar 13, 2021)

Mike T said:


> You're welcome to think whatever you want about my coolness level. It would be nice to have inconsistencies ironed out, but I can't for a second agree that these are "severe" challenges, and in any case the practical solution is obvious. People use this stuff "in the trenches" all the time and hammer things into the right shape on the fly, so it strikes me as silly to see this dithering about it on here.


Ok dude whatever. Maybe you don’t own a bunch of SF libraries and have to spend time dealing with it. No need to be critical of people just trying to find solutions.


----------



## CT (Mar 13, 2021)

Thundercat said:


> Ok dude whatever. Maybe you don’t own a bunch of SF libraries and have to spend time dealing with it. No need to be critical of people just trying to find solutions.


I do use them, almost exclusively actually. The only gain adjustments I've found I consistently do with anything are to turn BBCSO down by usually 3db relative to Eric Whitacre Choir, and to turn anything in Omnisphere down by at least 12db. Also I've re-saved both of the Spitfire organs to be much less hot by default to leave headroom for stacking stops. Those have been sufficient and pretty straightforward solutions for me.


----------



## Thundercat (Mar 13, 2021)

Mike T said:


> I do use them, almost exclusively actually. The only gain adjustments I've found I consistently do with anything are to turn BBCSO down by usually 3db relative to Eric Whitacre Choir, and to turn anything in Omnisphere down by at least 12db. Also I've re-saved both of the Spitfire organs to be much less hot by default to leave headroom for stacking stops. Those have been sufficient and pretty straightforward solutions for me.


Fair enough. I've struggled with HZS quite a bit in this regard, but glad it works for you.


----------



## LaurensGoedhart (Mar 14, 2021)

I've noticed the volume of their libraries is pretty low as well, but never took it as a problem. I compare it with the volume you would actually gain a microphone to when recording, and compared to that it's pretty okay. When adding any real recordings to a track with samples, this would just mix fine, and usually I up the gain on the mix bus with a limiter. I use a Clarity M loudness meter when working, and if you compare it to the standard EBU R128 loudness settings, everything within recording, editing and tracking measures around -23 LUFS, but when mastering its settings go up to -14 LUFS. So that leaves a lot of headroom on the mix bus, before hitting a limiter.


----------



## Loïc D (Mar 14, 2021)

Justin L. Franks said:


> I work around this by disabling the 'global' mode in the mic mixer for Spitfire player libraries, or enabling the "per articulation" option in the mic mixer for their Kontakt libraries. They both do the same thing, it is just presented differently.
> 
> With this setting, the mic mix can be different for each articulation, so when you switch articulations, it automatically loads in a new mic mix.
> 
> ...


I did the same for the most problematic cases but it’s a daunting job to do...


----------



## David Kudell (Mar 14, 2021)

Regardless of whether SF libs are lower in volume (they are) and whether that’s a good thing or not (it probabaly is, since most mixers you send to want plenty of headroom on your stems), they absolutely cannot be made louder in any kind of software update because it would destroy the mixes of existing tracks. It’s a good practice to leave lots of room so you don’t clip and you can always boost levels and compress on your master bus.


----------



## emilio_n (Mar 14, 2021)

I realized the problem with volume differences in EWC when playing the EVO the other day. There were notes that were barely heard when playing chords. Then I checked the problem by testing all the articulations separately. I think one thing is that the overall volume of the library is higher or lower (it has its pros and cons) and another is that the different articulations have a huge difference in volume between them. Actually, this is not a problem on EWC or even on Spitfire libraries. Long and short notes have usually different volumes but Legatos and Longs I Thinks should sound at the same level.


----------



## jbuhler (Mar 14, 2021)

emilio_n said:


> I realized the problem with volume differences in EWC when playing the EVO the other day. There were notes that were barely heard when playing chords. Then I checked the problem by testing all the articulations separately. I think one thing is that the overall volume of the library is higher or lower (it has its pros and cons) and another is that the different articulations have a huge difference in volume between them. Actually, this is not a problem on EWC or even on Spitfire libraries. Long and short notes have usually different volumes but Legatos and Longs I Thinks should sound at the same level.


You don’t want flautando at the same volume as normale. You don’t want the brass long at the same volume as cuivre. I agree that it would be nice if there was better correlation between the volume of legato and the normal long. While there can be some difference between shorts and longs, on some SF libraries (I’m thinking if the studio series) those differences can be excessive imho.


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 15, 2021)

One thing to realize as well is that in a live performance every section of the orchestra has section mic's along with soloists as well. This means its is possible to raise or somewhat lower the volume of any section against the other sections. So whilst articulations like flautando and harmonics are in reality very quite it would be possible via the mixing desk to raise the volume of the strings section and give the impression that these are louder than reality.

The standard mic mixes\balances in a library are just a static mix and whilst it will get you 80% of the way there just like when mixing a track its a static mix. Part of the art of a mix engineer either on a track or live is moving the balances through the track either by riding fadars or using automation so that where need you can lift certain parts and lower other parts. 

When i get stems for mixing i also ask the artists to let me know if there are any specific parts where they want to highlight an instrument\sound etc. the only times to be careful is when the timbre of an instruments is directly related to the volume mainly making loud timbres sound quite can end up sounding a little odd.


----------



## FireGS (Mar 15, 2021)

Update given to support with regards to my exact issue.





Example 1:
View attachment EWC.mp3






Example 2:
View attachment EWC2.mp3


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 15, 2021)

@FireGS Thanks for posting that

Here is the response I just received from SA support:


----------



## FireGS (Mar 15, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> @FireGS Thanks for posting that
> 
> Here is the response I just received from SA support:


That's upsetting. And I hope I don't receive a similar response, as I'm totally cool with the fact that the library is soft - its why I got it - but their reasoning for not boosting the library generally is exactly what's happening in the long vs legato patches - one of those patches is either too loud, or too soft. Seems like the longs are too loud, compared to the legatos, IMO.


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 15, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> @FireGS Thanks for posting that
> 
> Here is the response I just received from SA support:


This is not a good response as what they are saying is that they attempt to make all libraries the same volume regardless of size. This means for instance that a library with say a section of 4 cellos has been mixed\mastered to be the same level as a another library with a section of 8 cellos. This pretty much confirms what i found in the BBCSO with the solo oboe been pretty much the same volume as the 3 player section. All this means is that Spitfire's libraries in terms of volume are pretty much out of whack when used with other any other library.

Regarding the Choir library it sounds like the microphone gain was purposely kept down to create a soft sound rather that reducing the volume in the mix\mastering stage. As they have said if they were to boost the existing recordings it would mean the noise floor also rises so that unwanted artifacts would come to the fore. When I was taught how to mic and record this was considered bad practice to have the gain levels set too low for the exact reason they are saying they now cant raise the volume.


----------



## FireGS (Mar 15, 2021)

DovesGoWest said:


> This is not a good response as what they are saying is that they attempt to make all libraries the same volume regardless of size. This means for instance that a library with say a section of 4 cellos has been mixed\mastered to be the same level as a another library with a section of 8 cellos. This pretty much confirms what i found in the BBCSO with the solo oboe been pretty much the same volume as the 3 player section. All this means is that Spitfire's libraries in terms of volume are pretty much out of whack when used with other any other library.
> 
> Regarding the Choir library it sounds like the microphone gain was purposely kept down to create a soft sound rather that reducing the volume in the mix\mastering stage. As they have said if they were to boost the existing recordings it would mean the noise floor also rises so that unwanted artifacts would come to the fore. When I was taught how to mic and record this was considered bad practice to have the gain levels set too low for the exact reason they are saying they now cant raise the volume.


Thoughts on my posted examples?


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 15, 2021)

FireGS said:


> Thoughts on my posted examples?


You could have the longs and legatos on different tracks and then reduce the gain on the louder so that the maximum 127 is the same for both. Although i do agree there is no reason why legato\long\sustains should be different in volume unless it was say 20 people doing the legato and 10 doing the longs.


----------



## Nimrod7 (Mar 15, 2021)

I agree, I have noticed inconsistencies on Spitfire Libraries, more than other developers, which for premium libraries, is unacceptable.
A remaster will ruin work already done, except if they roll it out as a different product (probably that has a huge cost).

Anyhow gain staging has to happen to get different libraries from different devs to reasonable volume.
If you're using templates (VES or via DAW), I guess bring the libraries to -6 or -12 whatever your baseline is, and that's it.

Optionally in mixing if there is too much noise, NS1 or other denoiser will do the trick.

I personally don't like obeying what every dev thinks the volume "shall" be.
They don't know what will be created, and there is no way to dictate that.
The structure of the final composition will define it, based on a thousand factors such as what dominant elements we want the piece to have, synths etc.


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 15, 2021)

Nimrod7 said:


> I agree, I have noticed inconsistencies on Spitfire Libraries, more than other developers, which for premium libraries, is unacceptable.
> A remaster will ruin work already done, except if they roll it out as a different product (probably that has a huge cost).
> 
> Anyhow gain staging has to happen to get different libraries from different devs to reasonable volume.
> ...


Completely agree that's exactly the reason to balance your template so that all your libraries are in sync with each other in terms of volume and then you don't have to worry about it while composing.

What does concern me more is that statement from Spitfire that they mix\master all the libraries to be same volumes. I guess their idea is so that you don't have to balance their products are they are all on the same volume scale, but if they don't take into account section sizes then they have achieved nothing but always been quite.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 15, 2021)

Well, it is back to putting different patches on different tracks rather than using key switching, putting the Spitfire App's volume to 400% if necessary and adding a Gain plugin on certain channels at +24dB to make sure it is audible in a mix


----------



## FireGS (Mar 16, 2021)

Least I know I'm not crazy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 16, 2021)

FireGS said:


> Least I know I'm not crazy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Dont want to be the bearer of bad news but thats a response to placate you, i reported in July last year a problem in the BBSCO basses where the volume between consecutive notes changes despite the dynamic\expression\velocity been consistent. I had a very similar response saying they had managed to recreate it and it would be passed onto the product team etc, six months later and a major update to the BBCSO and still the problem exists and the ticket is on hold.


----------



## FireGS (Mar 16, 2021)

DovesGoWest said:


> Dont want to be the bearer of bad news but thats a response to placate you, i reported in July last year a problem in the BBSCO basses where the volume between consecutive notes changes despite the dynamic\expression\velocity been consistent. I had a very similar response saying they had managed to recreate it and it would be passed onto the product team etc, six months later and a major update to the BBCSO and still the problem exists and the ticket is on hold.


Yes, but at least I'm not crazy 😅🤣😭


----------



## Thundercat (Mar 16, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> Well, it is back to putting different patches on different tracks rather than using key switching, putting the Spitfire App's volume to 400% if necessary and adding a Gain plugin on certain channels at +24dB to make sure it is audible in a mix


Let’s not forget if we boost that much then the noise will be high as well. That absolutely is part of recording/tracking: making sure you record at a high enough volume and minimizing noise.

The fact they replied by saying they can’t boost too high or noise would be a problem actually means the library was not recorded hot enough. Simple. It’s a ghastly response.


----------



## Nimrod7 (Mar 16, 2021)

Thundercat said:


> Let’s not forget if we boost that much then the noise will be high as well. That absolutely is part of recording/tracking: making sure you record at a high enough volume and minimizing noise.


Exactly. 

_"When you record in 16bit the noise floor is about 96dB,
and when you record in 32bit the noise floor is about 1 billion! (1680dB)"_

Let's get together 700 bucks to buy Spitfire a 32 bit recorder...


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 16, 2021)

Thundercat said:


> Let’s not forget if we boost that much then the noise will be high as well. That absolutely is part of recording/tracking: making sure you record at a high enough volume and minimizing noise.
> 
> The fact they replied by saying they can’t boost too high or noise would be a problem actually means the library was not recorded hot enough. Simple. It’s a ghastly response.


Not quite... Noise comes from more than just the heat noise of the preamps. Cranking a pre-amp also brings up the noise of the space, of ambient energy, of HVAC. Very quiet sounds in even the best recording spaces will have several external factors contributing noise. Getting closer to a source will generally increase that S/N ratio, but many of us are using tree and ambient and outrigger mics for these libraries, and the noise floor is just too competitive. Also worth mentioning that Spitfire does do some denoising work to all of their libraries, but you can never kill it completely and pushing it too much when the S/N is a little worse means artifacts and loss of detail.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 16, 2021)

Not trying to forgive or make excuses for Spitfire, but I don't think some of the people here understand how deeply complicated this process is.

Overall, this is a really difficult problem to "solve". The amount of decision making required to balance articulations, to decide what points on the dynamic response curve should sound which volume, how the playing style of every articulation changes this, how legatos and longs are programmed very differently to compensate for varying loudness of the elements within, such as legatos needing to be matched to their unique legato transition recordings, how they came about in the session, and matching the curve of the layers to that, whereas longs may be set up differently. How automated filters and EQs on each layer influences all of this. How the ways players express short notes changes wildly between articulations, or how different types of articulations require different gain staging during the recording, etc. etc. etc.

In real mixes of real orchestras, the balance of instrument mics is different for every context and even changes throughout the course of a mix, like rebalancing close mics to bring out specific passages, or falling back to section mics or tree in different balances for other sections. We should ALL be making custom mixes for every single piece of music. This is how it's done in the real world.

Then there are micing decisions. If you're using mixes or close mics, those will be influenced by unique decisions. How close the close mic was, whether it's ensemble close micing (more distant to capture the whole section) or a soloist close mic (quite close to capture all the detail).

And in a mix preset, all of those are custom. Whether it's Jake or Simon doing the close mixes, they may have made the decision to boost close mic volume and maybe even turn it all up on the solo patches because you generally want solo patches to stick out in a mix that encompasses the whole orchestra.

Custom mixes should be the standard for anyone here, and if you're skilled in your DAW, making simple gain/fader changes is one of the easiest operations out there and shouldn't add excessive amounts of work. We have CC11 and CC7 so we can warp the volumes of recordings into unnatural places based on context.

This is a deeply complex problem to solve and isn't as easy as running things through loudness meters and taking notes.

I think an OVERALL problem is that Spitfire chooses not to brute force all their articulations into place, and instead tries to represent how things went down in the recording session and just giving it to users to do with as they please, or creating dynamics curves unique to each articulation that feel right to perform on their own, and they often record so many articulations that the direction and oversight required to match the "loudness" of every articulation from front to back across every instrument, every recording, every patch, is both very difficult and also very unrealistic to the actual performances.

It's cool that there are devs out there forcing every patch in their library into place, but I can assure you that it's not a realistic end result, though it is great for certain simple workflows, so which is the better option? There are lots of solutions we can take to come to similar results if we put in a little extra effort, and even when patches are forced into place to match, we'll still end up making those efforts depending on context.

Of course, there are some problem libraries (I do agree the Studio series is overall a bit of a mess, the issue above with EWC legatos and longs being notably mismatched, etc.) but there are trade-offs no matter which way you take this stuff. It's a real pain in the ass.

Every library from every dev balances their volumes differently and that's why God gave us "the fader".


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 16, 2021)

Thundercat said:


> Let’s not forget if we boost that much then the noise will be high as well. That absolutely is part of recording/tracking: making sure you record at a high enough volume and minimizing noise.
> 
> The fact they replied by saying they can’t boost too high or noise would be a problem actually means the library was not recorded hot enough. Simple. It’s a ghastly response.


Right, but, one of the EWC legato patches has notes that register at -48dB on the channel strip -- if I don't boost it, it will never be heard -- it won't even be heard as "ear candy" hidden in the background


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Mar 16, 2021)

While I think longs and legato should be similar volumes, and generally agree that Spitfire's libraries are on the quieter side (though I understand their response in terms of headroom), it is amusing that some people here are trying to explain how AIR Studio engineers don't know how to record properly.


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 16, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Not trying to forgive or make excuses for Spitfire, but I don't think some of the people here understand how deeply complicated this process is.
> 
> Overall, this is a really difficult problem to "solve". The amount of decision making required to balance articulations, to decide what points on the dynamic response curve should sound which volume, how the playing style of every articulation changes this, how legatos and longs are programmed very differently to compensate for varying loudness of the elements within, such as legatos needing to be matched to their unique legato transition recordings, how they came about in the session, and matching the curve of the layers to that, whereas longs may be set up differently. How the ways players express short notes changes wildly between articulations, or how different types of articulations require different gain staging during the recording, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> ...


Great detailed well written response Paul and I can’t disagree with anything you have said. However yes it’s all very complex but that’s the challenge that Spitfire was created to solve and what’s slowly coming to light is short comings and short cuts they have taken. The more competition there is and improves the more it’s highlighting this. 

The whole signal to noise is based around the noise floor of the mics and not having them going into a preamp hot enough. 

With regards sampling yes it’s a complex process but they are the ones who are experts and when other companies don’t exhibit the same issues then it highlights their deficiencies. Hell look at piano book and some of the stuff in there has been sampled with far less issues


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 16, 2021)

DovesGoWest said:


> Great detailed well written response Paul and I can’t disagree with anything you have said. However yes it’s all very complex but that’s the challenge that Spitfire was created to solve and what’s slowly coming to light is short comings and short cuts they have taken. The more competition there is and improves the more it’s highlighting this.
> 
> The whole signal to noise is based around the noise floor of the mics and not having them going into a preamp hot enough.
> 
> With regards sampling yes it’s a complex process but they are the ones who are experts and when other companies don’t exhibit the same issues then it highlights their deficiencies. Hell look at piano book and some of the stuff in there has been sampled with far less issues


Like I said above, there's preamp noise floor, mic noise floor, tape noise floor, and space noise floor. AIR is not the most soundproofed space in the world and I've heard them mention that they have to redo takes when emergency vehicles and the like go by, so equipment aside, there's still gonna be unsolvable S/N problems, especially through everything that's not a close mic.

It's hard when one of your articulations is sampling the softest most silent farts of Eric Whitacre's choir ensemble.


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 16, 2021)

Thundercat said:


> Let’s not forget if we boost that much then the noise will be high as well. That absolutely is part of recording/tracking: making sure you record at a high enough volume and minimizing noise.
> 
> The fact they replied by saying they can’t boost too high or noise would be a problem actually means the library was not recorded hot enough. Simple. It’s a ghastly response.


It demonstrates a very amateurish approach to recording or that the mics or preamps didn’t have very good SNR’s


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 16, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Like I said above, there's preamp noise floor, mic noise floor, tape noise floor, and space noise floor. AIR is not the most soundproofed space in the world and I've heard them mention that they have to redo takes when emergency vehicles and the like go by, so equipment aside, there's still gonna be unsolvable S/N problems, especially through everything that's not a close mic.
> 
> It's hard when one of your articulations is sampling the softest most silent farts of Eric Whitacre's choir ensemble.


True and I guess given a choir close micing is not like with an orchestra. Also how long ago was this recorded and how much has Air studios improved since then


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 16, 2021)

DovesGoWest said:


> True and I guess given a choir close micing is not like with an orchestra. Also how long ago was this recorded and how much has Air studios improved since then


There’s only so much you can do. The amount of time, planning, effort, and money that goes into redoing sound proofing in a space like that is monumental, and sometimes the gains are not worth the investment. It’s another very hard problem to solve for large spaces, and when a space is already sought after for the characteristics it has, trying to solve soundproofing problems in big ways may hurt those characteristics.


----------



## LynxUK (Mar 16, 2021)

I have no issue with the concept that one articulation is louder than another and is represented as such in a library....in fact I prefer it that way. What gets me though, is that there is so much difference between a normale legato patch and a sustain patch. As I mentioned before, I ran across it in Symphonic Woodwinds where I found I was adjusting upwards of 6db between patches on the same instrument. Now, ok, just use one track per articulation and adjust gain accordingly...but these db variations (between a legato and sustain patch) are from within one Kontakt instrument. Doesnt really make sense for them to provide the instrument, if interchangable articulations show so much volume difference.

Of course I would seperate shorts from longs into different tracks, but legato and longs?


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 16, 2021)

LynxUK said:


> I have no issue with the concept that one articulation is louder than another and is represented as such in a library....in fact I prefer it that way. What gets me though, is that there is so much difference between a normale legato patch and a sustain patch. As I mentioned before, I ran across it in Symphonic Woodwinds where I found I was adjusting upwards of 6db between patches on the same instrument. Now, ok, just use one track per articulation and adjust gain accordingly...but these db variations (between a legato and sustain patch) are from within one Kontakt instrument. Doesnt really make sense for them to provide the instrument, if interchangable articulations show so much volume difference.
> 
> Of course I would seperate shorts from longs into different tracks, but legato and longs?


Just a note! Not ideal because more tweaking, but in the wrench view of Spitfire's Kontakt player, you can click this little music note icon




above the mic faders to toggle on articulation independent mic mixes, so if you want to turn down one articulation, click it so the icon is darker, select your desired articulation so it's highlighted and active, and turn down the mics a bit.

Can cause some problems if you're going to be doing a lot of mic mix tweaks down the line, but it's a solution that lets you keep working in one instrument instance with multiple articulations.

You can also do the same thing in the Spitfire Player with that "Global" switch in the mic mix window.


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 16, 2021)

LynxUK said:


> I have no issue with the concept that one articulation is louder than another and is represented as such in a library....in fact I prefer it that way. What gets me though, is that there is so much difference between a normale legato patch and a sustain patch. As I mentioned before, I ran across it in Symphonic Woodwinds where I found I was adjusting upwards of 6db between patches on the same instrument. Now, ok, just use one track per articulation and adjust gain accordingly...but these db variations (between a legato and sustain patch) are from within one Kontakt instrument. Doesnt really make sense for them to provide the instrument, if interchangable articulations show so much volume difference.
> 
> Of course I would seperate shorts from longs into different tracks, but legato and longs?


If you look at the bbcso templates that spitfire designed they split it as legato, longs, shorts, pizz/col, fx

At the end of the day the issue you raised is an issue, a legato is nothing more than 2 sustains connected by a transition. 

All that will happen is they will acknowledge it and say it’s been passed to the product team and that’s it. As seems to be the way in the world of sample libraries once a library is built and shipped then its a case of move on to the next one. You might be lucky and get a update with fixes at some point but that costs the company money so no priority on it.

Been a professional software developer I find it amazing how these companies which in fact are software companies just have the mentality of consistently shipping new stuff and move on. When the software industry has got so agile to all this we fix issues and ship in days/weeks. 

Imagine if Apple/Steinberg etc did the same they bring out a new daw every few months with new features each costing $300. You buy one, find some issues and report them. The response you get is thanks we passed it to the product team, but now we’re working on a new daw product instead why don’t you buy that


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 16, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Just a note! Not ideal because more tweaking, but in the wrench view of Spitfire's Kontakt player, you can click this little music note icon
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 8DIO interface solves the issue by having a volume fadar against each articulation so you can balance them


----------



## yiph2 (Mar 16, 2021)

DovesGoWest said:


> Imagine if Apple/Steinberg etc did the same they bring out a new daw every few months with new features each costing $300. You buy one, find some issues and report them. The response you get is thanks we passed it to the product team, but now we’re working on a new daw product instead why don’t you buy that


Hmm, I wonder if there actually is a product like this 🤔Oh wait there is...


----------



## JamieLang (Mar 16, 2021)

What would this thread looked like if we removed every response from someone who has no idea what a studio calibration level is? 

Film sound level standard is -22dbfs=0VU. What is YOUR studio calibrated to? Maybe back up and ask what your aduio interface itself is calibrated to? It's listed usually as "analog headroom" in the specs. If you have 14db of analog headroom, your box/conversion is -14dbfs=0VU, as example. More professionally oriented IOs tend to have some settings. Apogee, 16x and Symphony products, I believe defaults to -18, but can be configured to -22 or -24 and at some amount of increments in between.

Without reading all the responses here, just going from the first post: Apple is the errant one here, not Spitfire. Their DAW and it's instruments are designed for people who have their machines calibrated to a consumer level of closer to -12dbfs=0VU, though I've never seen any documentation even saying that --just my experience in mixing in LPX comparing built in plug ins to known calibration levels of, say, Waves(-18).

If you want GOOD sound from a DAW, and I will NOT assume that's a given, you're going to need to leave more headroom than that. This level doesn't correlate to any kind finished mixed and mastered level. That's actually what all the headroom is for. If I take the simple dilemma in the OP's post, the solution is that you use that LogicX Gain plug in to REDUCE the Apple piano, which is objectively too loud for production. You'll quickly find that it's ALSO a turd of a piano sample, and when you buy Ivory or whatever professional instrument that it will fall roughly in line with Spitfire. But, sometimes they're NOT...so, what do you do? Logic has a function to save a user default. So, open that piano...reduce the output level of the plug in probably by -14db....and save that as the user default. You never have to deal again--unless you're a preset browser. THEN--instead of the output of a the patch, you save a track preset with the instrument and a GAIN plug in after it set to -14db and recall the instrument from the track preset rather than the AU instrument drop down.

Explanation of concept. Logic specific workflow.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 16, 2021)

JamieLang said:


> What would this thread looked like if we removed every response from someone who has no idea what a studio calibration level is?
> 
> Film sound level standard is -22dbfs=0VU. What is YOUR studio calibrated to? Maybe back up and ask what your aduio interface itself is calibrated to? It's listed usually as "analog headroom" in the specs. If you have 14db of analog headroom, your box/conversion is -14dbfs=0VU, as example. More professionally oriented IOs tend to have some settings. Apogee, 16x and Symphony products, I believe defaults to -18, but can be configured to -22 or -24 and at some amount of increments in between.
> 
> ...


A couple of things...

1--I have not seen "analog headroom" listed on audio interface specs (_e.g._ the AA Orion Synergy Core stated +130dB of "headroom" but does not state "analog headroom");

2--So if the calibration of Apple computers are "consumer level", what computer and DAW are you using? Or, are you recording to tape?; and

3--Re: the Logic Piano - I was obviously only using it to show the difference in volume levels - I didn't think I needed to open Keyscape to get the right piano sound for a clip only recorded as evidence in support of my OP


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Mar 16, 2021)

ChromeCrescendo said:


> 2--So if the calibration of Apple computers are "consumer level", what computer and DAW are you using? Or, are you recording to tape?; and


I was going to ask the same question, it makes no sense. And what exactly is the “consumer level”?


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 16, 2021)

JamieLang said:


> What would this thread looked like if we removed every response from someone who has no idea what a studio calibration level is?
> 
> Film sound level standard is -22dbfs=0VU. What is YOUR studio calibrated to? Maybe back up and ask what your aduio interface itself is calibrated to? It's listed usually as "analog headroom" in the specs. If you have 14db of analog headroom, your box/conversion is -14dbfs=0VU, as example. More professionally oriented IOs tend to have some settings. Apogee, 16x and Symphony products, I believe defaults to -18, but can be configured to -22 or -24 and at some amount of increments in between.
> 
> ...


There's a much easier answer to this: GarageBand and Logic's factory content is made for people who want to get in, have some fun, play around, and put something out there without knowing a thing about mixing or loudness standards or what have you. And most of that factory content is geared towards genres that are much louder than we deliver professional score content at. Simple as that.

Most software synths and pop/rock/EDM samples are either normalized to 0dBFS or quite loud compared to the standards we work to and I don't think that has anything to do with professional/consumer output/gear calibration.


----------



## twincities (Mar 16, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> And what exactly is the “consumer level”?


though it sounds a little insulting at quick glance, it's an accepted measure of line level -10dbv, not a jab at a product. 

stolen from wiki -


UseNominal levelNominal level, VRMSPeak amplitude, VPKPeak-to-peak amplitude, VPPProfessional audio+4 dBu​1.228​1.736​3.472​Consumer audio−10 dBV​0.316​0.447​0.894​


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 16, 2021)

twincities said:


> though it sounds a little insulting at quick glance, it's an accepted measure of line level -10dbv, not a jab at a product.
> 
> stolen from wiki -
> 
> ...


I've never had an audio interface (since I've been using them) not have both +4 and -10 available to choose from 

Naturally, I have not used every interface out there or read every spec


Can you give us examples of some audio interfaces that do not have an option to switch between +4 and -1)?


----------



## Thundercat (Mar 17, 2021)

DovesGoWest said:


> It demonstrates a very amateurish approach to recording or that the mics or preamps didn’t have very good SNR’s


Agreed...hard to fathom with their resources and experience...


----------



## schrodinger1612 (Mar 17, 2021)

Ok I see what you guys are on about...I'm currently working with the BHTK and the volume issue is a pain in the ass


----------



## Thundercat (Mar 17, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Not trying to forgive or make excuses for Spitfire, but I don't think some of the people here understand how deeply complicated this process is.
> 
> Overall, this is a really difficult problem to "solve". The amount of decision making required to balance articulations, to decide what points on the dynamic response curve should sound which volume, how the playing style of every articulation changes this, how legatos and longs are programmed very differently to compensate for varying loudness of the elements within, such as legatos needing to be matched to their unique legato transition recordings, how they came about in the session, and matching the curve of the layers to that, whereas longs may be set up differently. How automated filters and EQs on each layer influences all of this. How the ways players express short notes changes wildly between articulations, or how different types of articulations require different gain staging during the recording, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> ...


Agree it's probably not very simple to solve.

But at the end of the day, this product is supposed to be usable and some level of professional consistency is expected. That's why their libraries are hundreds or thousands. They presumably are getting paid to deliver a consistent and useable product. I don't have this issue with most other libraries, so this is indeed solvable, and other companies have solved it in various ways.

I want to be able to open the DAW and make music, not spend hours tweaking inconsistencies in volume between patches that should be at or near the same volume level.

I'm not criticizing you; I appreciate your perspective. However I was sorely disappointed with the "huge" sound of HZS. I loaded up the cello patches and cranked the volume up and up, expecting glorious cello and instead turning up my hearing aid.

Anyway the SF libraries have wonderful sounds.

Mike


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 17, 2021)

Thundercat said:


> Agree it's probably not very simple to solve.
> 
> But at the end of the day, this product is supposed to be usable and some level of professional consistency is expected. That's why their libraries are hundreds or thousands. They presumably are getting paid to deliver a consistent and useable product. I don't have this issue with most other libraries, so this is indeed solvable, and other companies have solved it in various ways.
> 
> ...


I was making a big case for making it a habit to tweak channel gain and your mix faders and CC11 at all times because I and many others do that with basically every library out there and it's a small step to add, one that should be expected. I continually try to work at around -24 LUFS while writing, but I also get that articulations and different passages will vary massively across the course of a piece. Articulation and sounds shouldn't all be funneled into the same dynamic window because then the same problems persist but backwards, a need to rebalance everything based on context.

_(EDIT: And an extra bit of advice about working at lower volumes, i.e. -24 LUFS: turning things down is so much easier than constantly turning everything up, not just for gain staging but also because then you have the full throw of your mix faders available instead of being limited to boosts of +6dB - 12dB that force you to use gain plugins instead. It's okay to turn those faders down to -20dB and even further if you're working with a patch that's stupidly loud for its desired use)_

When everything sounds in a similar dynamic range, marcatto attacks to flautandos to whispers, then you can easily get a flat "sameness" across the course of a track. Not everything is meant to be heard upfront at all times, and whether that's enforced by users being smart and rebalancing articulations in a library where everything's been squeezed into the same dynamic range or is initially enforced by a more natural and realistic range of dynamics that a library ships with, the work still needs to be done to create shape and life in an arrangement, to allow things to be subtle or overblown.

Virtual orchestration is all about trickery, and while many libraries, not just Spitfire's, have characteristics like this, I'm constantly tweaking the crud out of even the "consistent" libraries. My regular use of CC11 automation on Cinematic Studio libraries would make some of you cry, but it's really just a fundamental tool in the bag.

For the RUDEST statement I'll make in the whole thread, it smells somewhat of noobs and hobbyists who aren't willing to touch every piece of the process at every step to deliver the best outcome, even if it's quick and easy things. We're all performing tricks by making any of this stuff sound like the real deal, and we should use those tricks whenever we can or should, especially if they're as easy as touching a gain control or a fader or all the way up to drastic EQ curves or reverb and imaging manipulation or complex layerings of articulations, etc. etc. etc.

While there could be a little extra effort to match some stuff like legatos and longs patches (if their shared content and wildly different scripting allow it), it's so weird to act like this volume stuff sullies the price of the content or even ruins it.



Thundercat said:


> Agreed...hard to fathom with their resources and experience...


There's an explanation for this and I hit on it elsewhere in the thread. It's not just about equipment and gain staging.


----------



## schrodinger1612 (Mar 17, 2021)

The workaround i'm currently using is to load up different articulations in separate instances of BHTK and then using a gain plugin in the mixer to match the volumes. Sorry if this has already been suggested.


----------



## David Kudell (Mar 17, 2021)

Yep we should be balancing all our levels in a template. And the way to do that is to use our DAW’s gain and volume functions. As opposed to demanding the sample library be updated in such a way that would obliterate the relative mixes of everyone who has ever used a Spitfire library in one of their tracks. 🧐


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 17, 2021)

schrodinger1612 said:


> The workaround i'm currently using is to load up different articulations in separate instances of BHTK and then using a gain plugin in the mixer to match the volumes. Sorry if this has already been suggested.


Definitely! And you can also do this:



Paul Cardon said:


> Just a note! Not ideal because more tweaking, but in the wrench view of Spitfire's Kontakt player, you can click this little music note icon
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Thundercat (Mar 17, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> I was making a big case for making it a habit to tweak channel gain and your mix faders and CC11 at all times because I and many others do that with basically every library out there and it's a small step to add, one that should be expected. I continually try to work at around -24 LUFS while writing, but I also get that articulations and different passages will vary massively across the course of a piece. Articulation and sounds shouldn't all be funneled into the same dynamic window because then the same problem persists, a need to rebalance everything based on context.
> 
> When everything sounds in a similar dynamic range, marcatto attacks to flautandos to whispers, then you can easily get a flat "sameness" across the course of a track. Not everything is meant to be heard upfront at all times, and whether that's enforced by users being smart and rebalancing articulations in a library where everything's been squeezed into the same dynamic range or is initially enforced by a more natural and realistic range of dynamics that a library ships with, the work still needs to be done to create shape and life in an arrangement, to allow things to be subtle or overblown.
> 
> ...


Thank-you for the thoughtful and articulate explanation. I appreciate your wisdom and experience. I am not a full blown orchestrator yet. This will help me.

bless you.

Mike


----------



## FireGS (Mar 17, 2021)

David Kudell said:


> Yep we should be balancing all our levels in a template. And the way to do that is to use our DAW’s gain and volume functions. As opposed to demanding the sample library be updated in such a way that would obliterate the relative mixes of everyone who has ever used a Spitfire library in one of their tracks. 🧐


I think that's a bit hyperbolic. There's a pretty easy fix for this issue that will be loved by all: independent volume control per articulation **in** the plugin. Release a new update with the default values at the library defaults which would keep everyones mixes exactly the same as they were but allow a level of control we're all dying for.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Mar 17, 2021)

FireGS said:


> I think that's a bit hyperbolic. There's a pretty easy fix for this issue that will be loved by all: independent volume control per articulation **in** the plugin. Release a new update with the default values at the library defaults which would keep everyones mixes exactly the same as they were but allow a level of control we're all dying for.


100% all for this.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Mar 17, 2021)

FireGS said:


> I think that's a bit hyperbolic. There's a pretty easy fix for this issue that will be loved by all: independent volume control per articulation **in** the plugin. Release a new update with the default values at the library defaults which would keep everyones mixes exactly the same as they were but allow a level of control we're all dying for.


----------



## DovesGoWest (Mar 17, 2021)

FireGS said:


> I think that's a bit hyperbolic. There's a pretty easy fix for this issue that will be loved by all: independent volume control per articulation **in** the plugin. Release a new update with the default values at the library defaults which would keep everyones mixes exactly the same as they were but allow a level of control we're all dying for.


Exactly what 8DIO does


----------



## CT (Mar 17, 2021)

FireGS said:


> I think that's a bit hyperbolic. There's a pretty easy fix for this issue that will be loved by all: independent volume control per articulation **in** the plugin. Release a new update with the default values at the library defaults which would keep everyones mixes exactly the same as they were but allow a level of control we're all dying for.


It's entirely possible to do this already by deselecting "Global" on the mic mixer page and setting up your mixes per articulation as you deem appropriate. This only allows you to "turn down," but as Paul has pointed out, it's better to do that than crank stuff up. Ok, actually I see he already mentioned this anyway. Never mind!


----------



## JamieLang (Mar 17, 2021)

1: from the user manual of the hardware you mention: 

`Line Out (16 channels) on DB-25, [B]+20 dBu max, impedance balanced`[/B]

Thus the analog calibration is -20dbfs=0VU.

2: First, I have used Logic in the past to perfectly good ends by the workaroudns to the calibration I mentioned. I mix in Mixbus32c and compose in Cubase(10.5 fwiw). But, not because of the calibration levels. You CAN (and I have) worked in Logic at the proper (for your IO) -20=0vu calibration. It's logics plug ins and instruments that have a calibration--the core of the DAW doesn't. It the same for me when I open the following in Cubase:

3: Keyscape, just like many VIs aimed at live performance, has PRESETS that are calibrated for full scale consumer digital. Usually if you set the dynamic response over half way and remove the tape, it will back down to closer to a nomal level of dynamic response. I imagine his justification for this is that he did it to make it put out the hottest level for someone plugging in their laptop at a gig...since his background is ROMplers--that's an understandable workaround. So, he can have a lack of dynamic range akin to a Motif.

If I came off as a little pissy, it's because I couldn't believe that 5 pages into this people are talking about people "apologizing FOR Spitfire". For using what is a pretty standard production level rather than simply talking about studio calibration and WHY. The "generic" recommendation is -18, because whether you have a a film calibrated -22 or more "prosumery" level -14 box, -18 will do "fine". The "problem" is there IS no real standard for digital. So, no matter WHAT you pick, levels WILL be all over the place. But, I can ASSURE you, from a workflow stand point AND sonic one, you're better off turning down the loud stuff that turning UP the quiet. The 12 or 14 isn't enough headroom to do good digital mixing--so you end up turning master faders down and putting fidelity sucking limiters on just to "keep it from going over". 

Really, it's just something to be aware of...and calibrate your monitors to...it all makes sense if you do that. If you'll turn a -20dbfs test tone up and get your 85db registered in your listening spot with the DAW faders at unity....if a commercial DR5 master takes your head off, you're in the right ball park. Learn to manage a difference in recording level and cue monitoring level. Meaning, you should not need to record the vocals "hotter" to hear them better in the headphones.


----------



## Tom Auger (Aug 17, 2021)

I"m terrified to wade into this conversation because it's gotten pretty pissy at times, which I find disheartening, but I specifically found this post because I'm playing around with EWC and was mortified by the difference in levels between adjacent articulations, all of which has been mentioned already. A lot of people are responding to a lot of things, but I think the point of the OP's post was that, regardless of how loud or soft the overall library is, there are inconsistencies between samples / patches. I always thought Spitfire was near the top of the ladder in terms of quality, so I'm surprised. 

I'll be posting a support ticket though I'm sure the response will be identical.


----------



## Justin L. Franks (Aug 17, 2021)

Tom Auger said:


> I"m terrified to wade into this conversation because it's gotten pretty pissy at times, which I find disheartening, but I specifically found this post because I'm playing around with EWC and was mortified by the difference in levels between adjacent articulations, all of which has been mentioned already. A lot of people are responding to a lot of things, but I think the point of the OP's post was that, regardless of how loud or soft the overall library is, there are inconsistencies between samples / patches. I always thought Spitfire was near the top of the ladder in terms of quality, so I'm surprised.
> 
> I'll be posting a support ticket though I'm sure the response will be identical.



From my earlier post in this thread, this is how I deal with volume differences between articulations in the same patch. It works quite well for me, it just takes a little bit of time to set up. Once it is done, all articulations are automatically set to the same levels.



Justin L. Franks said:


> I work around this by disabling the 'global' mode in the mic mixer for Spitfire player libraries, or enabling the "per articulation" option in the mic mixer for their Kontakt libraries. They both do the same thing, it is just presented differently.
> 
> With this setting, the mic mix can be different for each articulation, so when you switch articulations, it automatically loads in a new mic mix.
> 
> ...


----------



## JamieLang (Aug 17, 2021)

Tom Auger said:


> A lot of people are responding to a lot of things, but I think the point of the OP's post was that, regardless of how loud or soft the overall library is, there are inconsistencies between samples / patches. I always thought Spitfire was near the top of the ladder in terms of quality, so I'm surprised.


I reread his post. I don't see how you can even interpret it as that. Admittedly, something else may be giving you that impression in the 5-6pages in between....but, he's talking baout Logic's piano and some other company's VI and how he has to raise Spitfire's VI by a bunch of DB with Logic's gain plug in to get the "same volume". 

To be clear, this OP is all I was responding to...if there are articulation inconsistencies that have ALSO come up...that's a different and more subjective sound design thing.


----------



## emilio_n (Aug 17, 2021)

The biggest problem yo me on EWC is the Evo Grid. The volume difference is so big that most of the combinations are unusable to me. Some Keys directly are inaudible in the mix! In the beginning, I thought that I had some samples missed.


----------



## Justin L. Franks (Aug 18, 2021)

emilio_n said:


> The biggest problem yo me on EWC is the Evo Grid. The volume difference is so big that most of the combinations are unusable to me. Some Keys directly are inaudible in the mix! In the beginning, I thought that I had some samples missed.


You can individually adjust the volume of each selected sound to the right of the Evo grid.


----------



## emilio_n (Aug 18, 2021)

Justin L. Franks said:


> You can individually adjust the volume of each selected sound to the right of the Evo grid.


ow, but I am not talking about a slight difference in volume, I mean that some samples are practically muted at 100% volume.
I know some articulations are on the ppp side and others on FF, but the grid is not a very inspiring feature. Maybe my workflow is not correct.


----------



## Iustin (Aug 18, 2021)

Abbey Roads Orchestral Foundation has the same problem, the volume is extremely low..


----------



## synthnut1 (Mar 27, 2022)

I’m REALLY late to this party, but wish I came early…..I just bought BBCSO core at a really good price knowing that there would be issues with dynamics…However, I wasn’t prepared for the volume differences in the articulations….Not being able to adjust the volume of each articulation is not a good idea, even if the developer has their own ideas on how their products should be recorded and used….There are many other libraries from SA that I was ready to purchase, but I’m surely going to rethink my purchase’s….The main reason for purchasing core was because wanted to see for myself the cohesiveness of the library before purchasing pro, and I wanted an “all in one”kind of library….I got my answer 😟


----------



## Bee_Abney (Mar 27, 2022)

synthnut1 said:


> I’m REALLY late to this party, but wish I came early…..I just bought BBCSO core at a really good price knowing that there would be issues with dynamics…However, I wasn’t prepared for the volume differences in the articulations….Not being able to adjust the volume of each articulation is not a good idea, even if the developer has their own ideas on how their products should be recorded and used….There are many other libraries from SA that I was ready to purchase, but I’m surely going to rethink my purchase’s….The main reason for purchasing core was because wanted to see for myself the cohesiveness of the library before purchasing pro, and I wanted an “all in one”kind of library….I got my answer 😟



For me, it is a problem worth dealing with for specific specialist libraries; but it puts me off committing to their orchestras (along with stability issues my system has with their player). I'm sorry it's turned out to be such a problem for you.

Give it some time, though; I find I warm up to their products over time as I familiarise myself with them and any issues. If you set up a template with different articulations on different tracks, you could address the level balance issues once and then not have to worry about it. Of course, if you are like me, you might prefer keyswitching to avoid larger templates.


----------



## Cdnalsi (Mar 27, 2022)

I have had zero issues with the BBCSO player and also set up my articulations on different channels, so I can iron out any of the volume discrepancies.

Though I still think the sound of the BBCSO is amazing, I'm willing to suffer through some of these minor inconveniences personally.


----------



## synthnut1 (Mar 27, 2022)

I too like the sound of BBCSO core…The sound is what gets me past the lack of dynamics, but having to set up more instances and not keyswitches is a bit much of a work around, especially for a company with as many products as SA….I expect more from them…I will still use some of the articulations, but will not use it in a full orchestral situation….Orchestral pieces are hard enough for me without the added workarounds…


----------



## jbuhler (Mar 27, 2022)

synthnut1 said:


> I too like the sound of BBCSO core…The sound is what gets me past the lack of dynamics, but having to set up more instances and not keyswitches is a bit much of a work around, especially for a company with as many products as SA….I expect more from them…I will still use some of the articulations, but will not use it in a full orchestral situation….Orchestral pieces are hard enough for me without the added workarounds…


Can you not set the volume on an individual articulation (rather than global) basis in the mixer? I’m not at my rig and I don’t have BBCSO but I have other spitfire player libraries and that’s how I usually handle these rebalancings when I don’t just make separate tracks.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Mar 27, 2022)

jbuhler said:


> Can you not set the volume on an individual articulation (rather than global) basis in the mixer? I’m not at my rig and I don’t have BBCSO but I have other spitfire player libraries and that’s how I usually handle these rebalancings when I don’t just make separate tracks.



That hadn't occurred to me. I only have Discovery, but Core might be able to do it.

Edit: Did you mean that using keyswitching would also switch between different volume settings?


----------



## synthnut1 (Mar 27, 2022)

If you’re putting your articulations on separate tracks or instances, you could adjust a lot of things including volume…but what if you’re playing involves keyswitching ?….If one articulation is much lower in volume, you have to resort to separate instances/tracks…again, it can be done, just more work


----------



## Justin L. Franks (Mar 27, 2022)

synthnut1 said:


> If you’re putting your articulations on separate tracks or instances, you could adjust a lot of things including volume…but what if you’re playing involves keyswitching ?….If one articulation is much lower in volume, you have to resort to separate instances/tracks…again, it can be done, just more work


In Spitfire player libraries, turn off Global mode. In Spitfire Kontakt libraries, turn on the Mic Mix to Articulation Linker option. Then you can create mic mixes for each articulation. Find the quietest one, set that to 100%. Then for the others, set their mic mixes at the appropriate levels. 

Then boost the Spitfire player or Kontakt master volume to compensate, and save everything as a user preset in Spitfire player libraries, or a snapshot or NKI in Kontakt libraries.

Then volumes will match across articulations when keyswitching. In Kontakt libraries, you can even layer articulations and their individual mic mixes will persist. Spitfire libraries don't do this though, if you layer an articulation, the second articulation "picks up" the same mic mix as the first articulation. I submitted a bug report about this a while back, but Spitfire said this was the intended behavior (?!?).


----------



## jbuhler (Mar 27, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> That hadn't occurred to me. I only have Discovery, but Core might be able to do it.
> 
> Edit: Did you mean that using keyswitching would also switch between different volume settings?


Yes, in the spitfire player if you turn off the global setting in the mixer you can mix each articulation separately and the mixer will change with the change in articulation (say with a change in keyswitch). You can keep the same mix but just dial in more or less of it per articulation. So I set the softest one first and then adjust the output and add gain if needed to get that one right. And then I lower the levels for the other articulations to match the levels I want. The Kontakt version of SF libraries has a similar functionality.

ETA: also what Justin L Franks says ☝️


----------



## Bee_Abney (Mar 27, 2022)

jbuhler said:


> Yes, in the spitfire player if you turn off the global setting in the mixer you can mix each articulation separately and the mixer will change with the change in articulation (say with a change in keyswitch). You can keep the same mix but just dial in more or less of it per articulation. So I set the softest one first and then adjust the output and add gain if needed to get that one right. And then I lower the levels for the other articulations to match the levels I want. The Kontakt version of SF libraries has a similar functionality.
> 
> ETA: also what Justin L Franks says ☝️



Thank you!! I'll have to check this out!


----------



## synthnut1 (Mar 27, 2022)

I’ll check it out too !….Thanks guys


----------



## CT (Mar 27, 2022)

synthnut1 said:


> I’m REALLY late to this party, but wish I came early…..I just bought BBCSO core at a really good price knowing that there would be issues with dynamics…However, I wasn’t prepared for the volume differences in the articulations….Not being able to adjust the volume of each articulation is not a good idea, even if the developer has their own ideas on how their products should be recorded and used….There are many other libraries from SA that I was ready to purchase, but I’m surely going to rethink my purchase’s….The main reason for purchasing core was because wanted to see for myself the cohesiveness of the library before purchasing pro, and I wanted an “all in one”kind of library….I got my answer 😟


...I should really know better than to bother by now, but....

If you really wanted this library for its "realistic cohesiveness," I would not go and adjust a bunch of articulation levels. The (inevitable in any library) discrepancies in this one are minor enough that they can be dealt with in performance rather than as mixing issues. At least this is how I feel after using and testing it extensively for a few years.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Mar 27, 2022)

Michaelt said:


> ...I should really know better than to bother by now, but....
> 
> If you really wanted this library for its "realistic cohesiveness," I would not go and adjust a bunch of articulation levels. The (inevitable in any library) discrepancies in this one are minor enough that they can be dealt with in performance rather than as mixing issues. At least this is how I feel after using and testing it extensively for a few years.


Interesting. So that the level discrepancies are in line with those of a live orchestra? Or a recorded orchestra? I guess that could be the same thing for a 'realistic' recording - or perhaps it is better to speak of verisimilitude.

Although it was you added the word 'realistic' to the discussion this is still a matter of interest and something anyone should consider going into this. After all, even if you want to mess with the levels for your own purposes, it would be well to know what the dynamic range might be on the actual instruments. Something for me to read up on, thanks.


----------



## CT (Mar 27, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> Interesting. So that the level discrepancies are in line with those of a live orchestra? Or a recorded orchestra? I guess that could be the same thing for a 'realistic' recording - or perhaps it is better to speak of verisimilitude.
> 
> Although it was you added the word 'realistic' to the discussion this is still a matter of interest and something anyone should consider going into this. After all, even if you want to mess with the levels for your own purposes, it would be well to know what the dynamic range might be on the actual instruments. Something for me to read up on, thanks.


I just mean that while testing how the library reflects the marketed goal of a realistically balanced, cohesive, all-in-one orchestra, I've not felt that anything has to be altered in volume to get there. Anyone who uses the library wanting that, then, in my view should think carefully before adjusting a bunch of stuff. Performance and mic selection should be sufficient.


----------



## synthnut1 (Mar 27, 2022)

Jbuhler….There is no global setting, nor are there any mic’s to adjust in core…Everything you speak of is in pro…I’ll figure it out…Thanks for your time


----------



## Justin L. Franks (Mar 27, 2022)

synthnut1 said:


> Jbuhler….There is no global setting, nor are there any mic’s to adjust in core…Everything you speak of is in pro…I’ll figure it out…Thanks for your time


Hmmm.

The master volume in the bar at the top of the plugin should be assignable to a CC. In the Spitfire player libraries I do have, it is mapped to CC7 by default, but right-clicking lets you reassign it. So you can adjust that when switching articulations. You could also try scripting something in your DAW to do this automatically. You don't need anything fancy, really all that would be needed is a MIDI event for the desired CC7 level whenever the note-on for each articulation's keyswitch is triggered.


----------



## LostintheBardo (Apr 28, 2022)

Been having this issue with the EWC legato patches being way quieter than everything else today. So annoying.


----------



## CT (Apr 28, 2022)

I certainly can't think of a good reason why this should still be an issue. Some things take a while to iron out but this seems like it's fairly basic under the hood to resolve. 

It's silly when people claim they never do updates, but the _rate_ at which some of them happen is kind of odd. One person could tackle a bunch of these minor things across multiple libraries in a single day. Maybe there's some obvious reason which I'm ignorant of, but if not I wish they'd be better about it (hire me) because it unnecessarily mars their reputation.


----------



## Zanshin (Apr 28, 2022)

Assuming these are cross-platform friendly etc.... Here are my EWC user presets where I made every art the same volume as the legatos (or tried to) (quiet), maybe someone will find them useful. Tree and outrigger... you'll have to adjust for other mics haha.

They go in "Spitfire Audio - Eric Whitacre Choir\Presets\Eric Whitacre Choir\user"


----------



## synthnut1 (Apr 28, 2022)

I think that a lot of developers push their wares out in beta form to keep revenue coming in and fix things later, or leave it up to the buyer to fix or deal with…..Every library out there has some kind of issues,especially now with developers coming out with their own engines….It reminds me of the early midi days when the midi map was different for each of the developers…


----------



## jbuhler (Apr 28, 2022)

Michaelt said:


> I certainly can't think of a good reason why this should still be an issue. Some things take a while to iron out but this seems like it's fairly basic under the hood to resolve.
> 
> It's silly when people claim they never do updates, but the _rate_ at which some of them happen is kind of odd. One person could tackle a bunch of these minor things across multiple libraries in a single day. Maybe there's some obvious reason which I'm ignorant of, but if not I wish they'd be better about it (hire me) because it unnecessarily mars their reputation.


There was an update to EWC that I downloaded the other day, and I was most surprised that this still wasn't fixed.


----------



## CT (Apr 28, 2022)

That was nothing but an M1 support update. Big deal for some, I guess, but I saw it and just laughed to myself.


----------

