What's new

Audiobro Modern Scoring Brass (MSB)

gjelul

Active Member
People complaining of the thin sound in the trumpets, in the first example that thin sound is actually more of an orchestration issue with regards to range and perhaps writing straight triads for trumpets. Gets kind of that Mariachi tone. The second example by ED W doesn't suffer from that initially. Trumpets are a little lower and supported underneath by trombones and later horns--leads to a fuller sound.

Personally I've found that in my experience the Bflat trumpets are thin sounding once above their high g. I've run into issues with that. I prefer C trumpets, they sound fuller and a little less "bandy" sounding to me. I think C trumpet if I remember correctly is preferred by most orchestral players, but of that I'm not sure, maybe it was just in New York.

Towards the end the demo by Ed Watkins falls into the trap of the awkward orchestration for trumpets, that lone solo high thing screaming in perfect intonation with out even so much as a little note crack or intonation adjustment, dead give away for samples, but up until then and I hate saying this If I heard it out of context I'd probably be inclined to think it was a real section especially in the opening 11 sec.

Also, for that high exposed stuff I'd lean on Sample Modeling The Trumpet where you can add a little crack and intonation difficulties and wobbling in to the programming.


The writing / orchestration plays a huge role on how the samples behave / sound. But for the moment these are the only 2 demos available to base an opinion on the library and the sound of it - usually the initial demos of a product are the best demos (could have sounded better imo.)

I still think that the overall sound is 'thin' (coming from a classically trained trumpet player and still playing for the past 25 years.) What I am missing is 'bite' in the sound. It's somohew too perfect, and sounds 'synthy' at times (especially in the second demo.) Maybe more 'massaging' was needed in the production of the demo, the releases of the samples or other tweaks to make it sound closer to what it should sound. But, this is what we have at the moment to listen too.

I like the sound, however, in the limited Andrew's walkthrough and I hope that more will come showing more of the 'naked' sound. I'm also starting to think that maybe it's a taste in what the orchestral sound should be from the Audiobro team and the applied recording techniques, hall used, gear used, etc. (LASS comes to mind - it sounds 'thin' as well.)

As for a sound reference in all being discussed here is an example:

Audiobro is one of my favorite developers and I have all they've made so far. I'll probably end up buying MSB anyways just for the great GUI, articulations, list of instr. and the rest of the great features.
 

Noeticus

Motion Picture Producer
This is my first post.

I assume everyone that hears deficiencies in the Audiobro MSB demo's are listening to them with quality studio monitors etc. and not cheap computer speakers? If this is a ridiculous question to ask in a forum like this, then my apologies. :)

When I play the demo's in my 5.1 Surround Studio they sound great!
 

Eptesicus

Senior Member
This is my first post.

I assume everyone that hears deficiencies in the Audiobro MSB demo's are listening to them with quality studio monitors etc. and not cheap computer speakers? If this is a ridiculous question to ask in a forum like this, then my apologies. :)

When I play the demo's in my 5.1 Surround Studio they sound great!

This. I have to admit, i was blown away the first time i listened to the first demo (Reaching the Summit). I was genuinely impressed by how authentic and massive it sounded.
 

kevthurman

Active Member
This is my first post.

I assume everyone that hears deficiencies in the Audiobro MSB demo's are listening to them with quality studio monitors etc. and not cheap computer speakers? If this is a ridiculous question to ask in a forum like this, then my apologies. :)

When I play the demo's in my 5.1 Surround Studio they sound great!
I mean it doesn't take studio monitors to tell when a library sounds thin compared to real recordings or other libraries on that same sound system. That being said, I think people have judged this library too early given the limited demos available.
 

josejherring

Senior Member
I mean it doesn't take studio monitors to tell when a library sounds thin compared to real recordings or other libraries on that same sound system. That being said, I think people have judged this library too early given the limited demos available.
Save for the high trumpets, I'm just not hearing the thinness. So I think that any jud
The writing / orchestration plays a huge role on how the samples behave / sound. But for the moment these are the only 2 demos available to base an opinion on the library and the sound of it - usually the initial demos of a product are the best demos (could have sounded better imo.)

I still think that the overall sound is 'thin' (coming from a classically trained trumpet player and still playing for the past 25 years.) What I am missing is 'bite' in the sound. It's somohew too perfect, and sounds 'synthy' at times (especially in the second demo.) Maybe more 'massaging' was needed in the production of the demo, the releases of the samples or other tweaks to make it sound closer to what it should sound. But, this is what we have at the moment to listen too.

I like the sound, however, in the limited Andrew's walkthrough and I hope that more will come showing more of the 'naked' sound. I'm also starting to think that maybe it's a taste in what the orchestral sound should be from the Audiobro team and the applied recording techniques, hall used, gear used, etc. (LASS comes to mind - it sounds 'thin' as well.)

As for a sound reference in all being discussed here is an example:

Audiobro is one of my favorite developers and I have all they've made so far. I'll probably end up buying MSB anyways just for the great GUI, articulations, list of instr. and the rest of the great features.
I hear you. As a clarinet player, I think sometimes we are our own worst enemies by trying to compare that instrument that we've slaved so hard over to a sample library.

I personally can't stand any clarinet library, expect for the Herring Clarinet of course. Something really special about that one.
 

kevthurman

Active Member
Save for the high trumpets, I'm just not hearing the thinness. So I think that any jud

I hear you. As a clarinet player, I think sometimes we are our own worst enemies by trying to compare that instrument that we've slaved so hard over to a sample library.

I personally can't stand any clarinet library, expect for the Herring Clarinet of course. Something really special about that one.
I don't think it's particularly thin either. Honestly I've been impressed enough by a few of the features that I'm going to be first in line to buy it tomorrow. For me it fills the holes that other brass libraries just couldn't before, especially the attack control and the individual sampling. Cheaper than BB(for now at least) and seemingly equal or more content when you really dig in to it.
 

Guy Rowland

Senior Member
A few people here claimed that they thought the video sounded better than the audio demos. Just for those curious / bored, I thought I'd phase invert the video and audio of the beginning of the Reaching The Summit demo to see if they null.

Short answer - they don't. Quite a lot going on between them, all in the mids and highs. I'd guess either its compression artefacts, or different mastering between the two. Hear for yourself - https://www.dropbox.com/s/x8maftq8111xjle/MSB Reaching The Summit - phase cancelled video and audio demos.wav?dl=0 . For reference, I've kept it live until just after Andrew's narration introduction, so you can gauge what kind of levels are involved. There's an audio dip just before where it all comes into normal sound.

All recorded straight from the Audiobro website via Loopback into Adobe Audition.
 

pderbidge

Senior Member
Couldn't the "thin" sound that some are referring to here be the Audiobro approach of keeping the library as dry as possible to where it is up to us to make it as "thick" as we want to with our own processing? That's what I like most about LASS is how versatile it is to sound close and intimate or big and Hollywood sounding with the right verb and eq treatment. I like the sound of the library so far, although I will admit that at times it does get a little too perfect but I chalk that up to the Auto divisi where I think there are times where you just need to program these things in yourself if you really want to get that ultimate realism. I am probably the last that should give advice on programming these things though since I still consider myself a bit of a newcomer to all of this.
 

Brian Nowak

Active Member
I think some people are perceiving more negativity than is being displayed and are misconstruing most people's statements.

I think this library was hugely anticipated. A lot of the specs have been known for a very long time, and people had time to build up an expectation in their minds.

I haven't seen anybody say it sounds terrible or even subpar. I think some people (myself included ) had an ideal in mind and what they've heard so far hasn't absolutely convinced them. There is very little material to listen to and more will come out.

Right now there is an absurd amount of speculation about things we just don't know. Saying the composers mixed or arranged their pieces in a way that forced the brass to sound that way makes little to no sense. It's just as likely their pieces are a great representation of how the instruments sound.

For what it's worth I think Daniel's piece was friggin awesome. I just felt there were moments where the "sampliness" of the brass parts came through. I have talked with Daniel at pretty good length about his dedication to mockups, and that guy... he puts in the work to get his midi chops very realistic sounding. So my view is more that this is just the way the library sounds. And if you love it way cool. If you aren't sold it's probably not your cuppa but we will find out more soon.
 

ProfoundSilence

Senior Member
Couldn't the "thin" sound that some are referring to here be the Audiobro approach of keeping the library as dry as possible to where it is up to us to make it as "thick" as we want to with our own processing? That's what I like most about LASS is how versatile it is to sound close and intimate or big and Hollywood sounding with the right verb and eq treatment. I like the sound of the library so far, although I will admit that at times it does get a little too perfect but I chalk that up to the Auto divisi where I think there are times where you just need to program these things in yourself if you really want to get that ultimate realism. I am probably the last that should give advice on programming these things though since I still consider myself a bit of a newcomer to all of this.
Honestly I think people are too used to samples at this point, and forget that brass doesn't keep it's bottom end at FF. Higher frequencies dominate - and even players of these instruments might be confused because they still feel the lower end because they're attached to the instrument 0 ft away, but at the end of the day, that low end slowly gets cancelled out by the top. Someone even put the recording I refenced in this thread as some sort of dichotomy, without realizing that I'd posted it right next to the demos - and a quick AB shows that it's wayyyyy closer than people give it credit for - and TLJ is probably the darkest/warmest of all 8 film sound tracks. And it's important to realize that Williams tends to keep his dynamics overall pretty low anyways - which allows them to retain their warmth a bit.

if you're used to zimmers 12 horns playing at mf - this will sound thin. Part of the benefit of having a huge ensemble is that even playing at MF it creates a massive sound.

Likewise, something that programming wise I suggest(especially when using things like samplemodeling) is to have 1 "lead player" and have each consequent player divide themselves between that dynamic and the next lower. I.e. if you have the lead trumpet on at ff, have the 2nd player between ff and f(or f) and have the 3rd on f or mf. You can get away with more of a difference in dynamics during unison - but you have to stay closer during divisi because then it's an issue of blending(and likely going to have the higher players playing softer to blend better because of volume disparity)
 

gjelul

Active Member
This is my first post.

I assume everyone that hears deficiencies in the Audiobro MSB demo's are listening to them with quality studio monitors etc. and not cheap computer speakers? If this is a ridiculous question to ask in a forum like this, then my apologies. :)

When I play the demo's in my 5.1 Surround Studio they sound great!

5.1 Focal SM9s here...
 

constaneum

Senior Member
When people start posting user demos, it will tell me more of what I need to know. The user demos in the early days of CSB were great.
it all goes to user's sound preference. Some likes it thin, some doesnt. anyway...i'm done shopping for brass. i'm settled with CSB happily so yea. even though i like MSB mainly on their approach for this product, i'm done. Looking forward to hearing LASS 3 and a supplementary woodwinds to be used in line with Berlin Woodwinds.
 

gjelul

Active Member
if you're used to zimmers 12 horns playing at mf - this will sound thin. Part of the benefit of having a huge ensemble is that even playing at MF it creates a massive sound.

nothing to do with this one.
 

Dave Connor

Senior Member
As convenient as auto-divisi is - as noted above - every instrument will be at the identical cross-fade point (vol etc.,) and that is going to kill realism in too many ways to count. A library such as this allows you to avoid that kind of thing (which belongs to earlier sample limitations such as the same sampled instrument tripled to form a triad.)
 
Last edited:

chocobitz825

Senior Member
As convenient as auto-divisi is - as noted above - every instrument will be at the identical cross-fade point (vol etc.,) and that is going to kill realism in too many ways to count. A library such as this allows you to avoid that kind of thing (which belongs to earlier sample limitations such as the same sampled instrument tripled.)
I believe since this is similar to genesis, they remedy this with the humanization options in the ensemble menu. for genesis it was able to separate the various male and female vocals by ms divisions or randomization.
 

kevthurman

Active Member
When it comes out, I'm going to do an in-depth review with a new format I want to try. Here's how it will work:

The first video will be a series of standard orchestral brass section excerpts, some accompanied and some unaccompanied. This will be to test how well the instruments blend with eachother and also with a full orchestra. It will also test how well they do in a real full orchestral context. It will include a number of famous late romantic and early 20th century brass moments as well as a couple of my own cues that I'm working on as we speak. I will also demonstrate with one of the pieces several mic mixes to get an idea of the tone you get out of each mic.

The second video will focus on the individual instruments. Due to the nature of an individually sampled library, I thought it would be appropriate to create mock "auditions". Each instrument group has a short list of standard orchestral solo excerpts which they will play one by one so viewers can get an idea of what sort of tones they can get out of these instruments. The only instruments I didn't come up with good excerpts for were the cimbassi... They seem common in the sample world but I don't think I've ever seen one while playing in or viewing orchestra concerts and I don't know of any standard excerpts for them. Perhaps I'll write a short chorale for them or something.

The third will feature several film music moments, including a lot of Williams cues (sorry, I just feel like his style is very good to test brass against, and more contemporary styles seem to be written to make sample libraries sound good) as well as others, older and newer alike. I hope this one doesn't get taken down for copyright infringement, haha. If it does, I'll try to share the clips that don't get flagged onto this site. There will of course be the obligatory force theme and imperial march... But also some less standard stuff!

The fourth and final video will feature a few video game cues. Right now it includes some World of Warcraft, Skyrim, and Halo music. Might expand as I dig in.

I've always felt that library reviews are often very hard to really get much info from, at least personally. Demos are more useful because they really give a better in-context idea of how the library performs. With this format, there are real recordings to compare these pieces to which can highlight glaring failures in the libraries or shining victories. Additionally, it will act like a boot camp to teach me how to use what seems to be a very deep library. I have a "program" of pieces that I have been mulling over for the past week or so, but I don't want to post it because I probably won't do everything that's on it due to the sheer amount of time required for the amount of pieces I chose. Believe me, there's a lot of stuff on there. For those on the fence, it might be worth checking it out as I hope to have at least the first video or two done by the end of the week. If this goes well, I hope to do it with other libraries in the future, although I won't probably have the money for something new for a good while.
 

ProfoundSilence

Senior Member
As convenient as auto-divisi is - as noted above - every instrument will be at the identical cross-fade point (vol etc.,) and that is going to kill realism in too many ways to count. A library such as this allows you to avoid that kind of thing (which belongs to earlier sample limitations such as the same sampled instrument tripled.)

I know I personally don't plan on using the auto divisi for anything except writing - and will use separate tracks per regardless. Considering these instruments were all recorded centered, I'll much prefer using my own spatialization in the end, as well as control my own dynamics per instrument(even if this involves just re-recording cc's instead of the whole passage).


"if you're used to zimmers 12 horns playing at mf - this will sound thin. Part of the benefit of having a huge ensemble is that even playing at MF it creates a massive sound."

nothing to do with this one.
You can very clearly see that much of some of those mockups were at 127 or near it. Most likely a consequence of the library seeming very agile, which(if you've played samplemodeling) tends to cause you to want to create jumpy frenetic lines. 4 trumpets at mf would produce about the same volume as 2 at ff, but be much warmer/fatter.

same situation with horns. Example: 1 horn playing F = about 3 horns playing mp. To use sample libraries as an example = horn 1 of berlin brass at 127 = horns 2+3+4 at maybe 25%?

here is an example where I perform exactly that. horn 1 at max, other 3 to match the level.

and at the end - I have unison all cc127 - then the same note where all 4 horns are playing different dynamics. 100% - 85% - 70% - 55%

notice the 2nd one sounds much fuller - despite having very little drop in volume.

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/dynamics-mp3.19540/][/AUDIOPLUS]
 

Attachments

Top Bottom