Audiobro Modern Scoring Brass (MSB)
- Thread starter zolhof
- Start date
ProfoundSilence
Senior Member
cc1?
Dave Connor
Senior Member
Is it confirmed that the library has three dynamic layers? How are people finding that? Are you getting what you want at the extreme dynamic ranges?
Is there a general consensus on the overall library now that you’ve had more time with it?
Is there a general consensus on the overall library now that you’ve had more time with it?
It's real music looped, no?
Guy Rowland
Senior Member
Number of layers varies from articulation to articulation I think, minimum of 3 for all the core stuff I think though.
Can't speak for anyone else, but very happy here.
Batrawi
Senior Member
something's really off with the note attacks here. They're just too sharp that they make the whole note sounds like a pure rectangular midi block (if that makes any sense). Even the sharpest note in real life has that pre-attack blowing noise that then curves/morphs into the sustained note...something that seems absent in this library as far as I heard from all demos- not just this one.
ProfoundSilence
Senior Member
that's what happen when you leave on 1 attack turn the dynamics to max and leave it.
that said, I think it's a consequence of people not using an extra CC to modulate the attack type - even when they move CC1, they seldom seem to automate or control the attacks. Honestly, I've been house hunting and work has been dragging the life out of me - so I haven't been able to play with the library much at all. But this is simply a case of user error, even the sustains have 3 different attack types(recorded at multiple dynamics) I'm personally not as excited as I was about the library - simply because of the center recorded aspect, and it really not having much in the lower regions.
I would rather subtract than add when it comes to EQ, and I feel like the sound you get from this library is great for adventure/classical works - but would take more work than I'd like to get the specific brass sound I'm after.
Living Fossil
Senior Member
Owning this library i strongly disagree.
However, it's a library that needs the (intense) use of controllers.
SoNowWhat?
realised I can type here
Can I ask which type of brass sound you were chasing (sorry if you said earlier in the thread)? An example or description? Also, which tools have you tried for placement to deal with the centre recording aspect? Is it a case of you can’t get good placement results or that it takes extra time/effort to get it right compared to a library recorded in position; that you don’t like?
Guy Rowland
Senior Member
Actually I don’t even find controller use especially taxing. I have attacks mapped to key velocity, so there’s a natural variation as I play soft / loud, and I’ve also put an auto-control for cc11 onto cc1 to cut down on fader use (cc11 I have working in the range of 50-100%).
I’m not saying that there aren’t issues to deal with with MSB, as any library, but there does seem to be rather odd effect of people hearing major problems that imo are either very subtle or not there at all. Not isolating any one person in particular. The library does have a lot of options and a lot of control which means I guess one person’s setup and demos might not reflect how another person uses it, and there was certainly a relative paucity of material to listen to at launch which might go some way to explain this, but in use now I have it all set up I find I just play and it works.
The relative lack of dynamics in the lower part of the CC1 range is one where I can see the problem but is (if you will) rather overblown. Elsewhere I produced examples that were entirely in the first half of cc1, and there was considerable range there. In an ideal world there would be more, but it’s good and useable to me. Given that each instrument is build as an ensemble from solos, this seems particularly remarkable that it works as well as it does without a hint of phasing present anywhere, and that’s must have been a megaton of work. Perhaps given the scale of the whole endeavour limiting to 3 layers on sustain was the real world trade off. But of course by doing it the way they’ve done it, you get lots of other benefits.
Living Fossil
Senior Member
@Guy Rowland : What i meant is that MSB indeed gives you the possibility to control the addressed issues. I've assigned different relevant parameters (attack, tighten, vibrato, sizzle etc) to controllers and like the workflow & the results.
sinkd
AARP Curious Member
Right.
Gotta disagree strongly with this--have you checked out Guy's walkthrough?
ProfoundSilence
Senior Member
I own the library - and the bulk of it's serious competition.
I also own Cinebrass(everything)
I also own Berlin Brass(everything except FX)
I also own Spitfire Symphonic Brass
I also own Hollywood Brass
I also own Cinematic Studio Brass
I also own plenty of other brass libraries(adventure/Caspian/all the arks/sample modeling/chris hein orchestral brass)
Would you like me to directly compare it to cinebrass, berlin brass, and cinematic studio brass? The other brass libraries recorded on scoring stages(HWB just isn't installed)
It's not that it's un-usable... it simply lacks a lot of the body - that I'd (as I stated) rather remove rather than add) Trying to spatialize center recorded material is not the end of the world - I've got the tools to do it. Trying to add bottom end that isn't present in the recordings is also possible - I've got the tools to do it.
But doing both for a few nice features over just using the libraries I already have comes down to sonic requirements. It's literally a preference of workflow(I think the library is amazing for sketching, but ultimately I would want to just redo using berlin most likely) Sonically this library fits better with the spitfire symphonic stuff than it does my berlin stuff.
My initial assumptions about the library stayed roughly the same after purchasing. Auto Divisi - writing tool, center recorded bothered me like it does everytime - and while it's not "too thin" it does lack some of the very low information(that usually gets filtered off anyways). It's an amazing library, but it has it's quirks - and I've stated them.
That said, this is a library with a lot of shaping required by the user - and as a result is very easily subjected to misuse.
ProfoundSilence
Senior Member
Here you go.
1. the Decca Tree from MSB, no EQ, no effects.
2. the ORTF mic from Berlin Brass, no EQ, no effects(The berlin tree is much farther back than MSB)
3. the Main mic(tree I assume) from CSB, no EQ, no effects
4. the room mic from Cinebrass Pro, no EQ, no effects(there is really no happy medium between the close mic and the room - and no extremely tight short like the other libraries offer)
all 3 use the exact same midi, 3 notes, velocity 1 > velocity 67 > velocity 127.
MSB > BB > CSB >CB in that order.
despite berlin brass being in a similar proximity - you can still hear plenty of bottom end(an effect that is much more obvious on the other mic choices)
I had a hard time getting Cinebrass' dynamic curve lined up with the other libraries, as it's the only one that had an abysmally small dynamic range(2 velocity layers I think)
[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/shorts-mp3.20213/][/AUDIOPLUS]
1. the Decca Tree from MSB, no EQ, no effects.
2. the ORTF mic from Berlin Brass, no EQ, no effects(The berlin tree is much farther back than MSB)
3. the Main mic(tree I assume) from CSB, no EQ, no effects
4. the room mic from Cinebrass Pro, no EQ, no effects(there is really no happy medium between the close mic and the room - and no extremely tight short like the other libraries offer)
all 3 use the exact same midi, 3 notes, velocity 1 > velocity 67 > velocity 127.
MSB > BB > CSB >CB in that order.
despite berlin brass being in a similar proximity - you can still hear plenty of bottom end(an effect that is much more obvious on the other mic choices)
I had a hard time getting Cinebrass' dynamic curve lined up with the other libraries, as it's the only one that had an abysmally small dynamic range(2 velocity layers I think)
[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/shorts-mp3.20213/][/AUDIOPLUS]
pderbidge
Senior Member
I don't own this library so it's hard to comment on what you might be hearing without a good play through of the library, so my impression of what I hear could change if I owned it and had a play-through like you have been doing, however from your short example it sounds to me that the main difference between each one is that MSB has less room than the others, which may make it feel like it has less body. The sound, however sounds, to me, exactly how that instrument would sound in dry room. Are you thinking that maybe they eq'd the low end out of the instrument for some reason? It's certainly possible but that's not what I'm hearing.
ProfoundSilence
Senior Member
I think it's a consequence of a dry room, combined with being in the center of it.
their tree is close(but berlin is similar presence with a muuuuchhh different room, and not in the center of it)
that said, later this week I can even compare the short mic's from berlin, but teldex is also just plain juicy for brass.
the surround for MSB isn't magically holding all the bottom end either. I should note that I turned the sizzle knob off, so the samples are un-EQ'd by the sizzle as well(which ofcourse removes more bottom end when it's on top)
In the case of the berlin brass short - it's similiarly present and tight, but it still has warmth and ambience in the tail, something you'd have to add completely artificially with MSB.
That said, the end result of mixing for something like berlin I'd imagine people would(I know I usually do) remove some of the tail end anyways - but I wouldn't go as far as MSB goes(thus I'm stuck adding information that isn't really there)
They are different people... thus the different last names
